KODALI BAPAYYA Vs. YADAVALLI VENKATARATNAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This batch of second appeals arises' out of suits instituted by the respondent for ejecting certain tenants. The properties are situated in a village called Yanike-padu. In 1754 one Venkatarayanim Garu who is stated to have been the then Zamindar of Bezwada granted them as in am to one Chandra-sekhara Sastri, Ex. P. 1 and the in am was confirmed in 1865 during the enfranchisement proceeding's. The plaintiff is the successor-in-interest of the inamdar. The defendants are the tenants in possession of various parcels of land comprised in this inam.

(2.) The plaintiff sued to eject them and to recover mesne profits. The defendants resisted the suits on the ground that they had occupancy rights in the land and that therefore, they could not be evicted. They also pleaded that there was no notice to quit as required - by law and that, therefore, the suite were not maintainable. The learned District Munsif held that the defendants had not establishod occupancy rights and that, therefore, they were liable to be ejected. He also held that the plaintiff had sent registered notices to the defendants calling upon them to surrender possession and that the defendants .' had refused to receive them and that was sufficient notice. In the result the suits were decreed. On appeal the learned Subordinate Judge held that under the grant Ex. P. l both kudiwaram and melwaram passed to the inamdar; that the defendant had not established any occupancy right and that, therefore, they were liable to be ejected. On the question of notice he held that there was no notice because the postal endorsement was not sufficient to establish refusal thereof by the defendants. But he held that as the lease deeds executed by the defendants contained a provision that they would surrender possession without notice they must be deemed to held on the same terms when they continued in possession after the expiry of the lease period and that therefore no notice was necessary. In the result he confirmed the decrees of the first Court. Against that decision the defendants have preferred these second appeals. On the first question as to the right of the plaintiff to eject the defendants, it was contended by Mr. P. Somasundaram the learned advocate for the appellants that the findings of the Court below were substantially based on the decision in -- 'Venkateswariu v. Lakshmanna', AIR 1944 Mad 365 (A), and as that had been reversed in -- 'Lakshmanna v. Venkateswariu', AIR 1949 PC 278 (B), the lower Court should be directed to rehear the appeals and send revised findings in the light of the decision of the Privy Council. We do not consider it necessary to do so because we have the original grant before us and all the relevant materials necessary to come to a correct conclusion have been placed before us. Exhibit P. 1 is the original grant of the year 1754 by K. Venkatarayanim Garu to Sri Chandra-sekhara Sastri. It runs as follows:

(3.) Prom 1890 they contain a provision that the tenants should surrender possession at the expiry of the stipulated period. The lease deeds executed in the year 1919 and thereafter also contain recitals that the tenants would not raise disputes, that they possessed no other right and that they would relinquish possession without further notice. Exhibit P. 3 series are dambalas directing the karnam and the kapu of the village to allow the grantee to harvest and take the produce. These are the material documents bearing on the question and on them it is impossible, in our opinion, to come to any other conclusion than that the grant was of both the warams and not merely melwaram. That is the conclusion to which the Courts below have come and we are in agreement with it.