VAPPULURI VENKATA RAMAMURTHI Vs. PAPPALA VENKAYYA AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner is the plaintiff in O.S. No. G3 of 1944 on the file of the District Munsiff of Yellamanchilli. The suit was filed by him to eject the defendants and for the recovery of arrears of rent. It was contended by the defendants that the plaintiff was a landholder within the meaning of Madras Estates -Land Act that they (the defendants) are ryots entitled to occupancy rights and. could not be ejected and that the claim for arrears of rent would not lie in the Civil Court; The learned District Munsiff held that the plaintiff was only a landholder and upheld the contention of the defendants. While holding therefore that the prayer for ejectment could not be granted he directed that the plaint should be returned for presentation to the proper Court inasmuch as there was a claim for arrears of rent. The plaintiff appealed to the District Judge of Vizagapatam. He too agreed with the view of the District Munsiff and confirmed the order. This revision petition is filed by the plaintiff on the ground that both the Courts have misconstrued the legal position and that on a proper interpretation of Ex. D. 2, which is the document creating rights in favour of the plaintiff's predecessor, it should be held that the plaintiff himself should be regarded as the ryot entitled to occupancy rights and that the defendants, who took a lease of the suit land from the plaintiff, were not entitled to occupancy rights.

(2.) THE question at issue depends upon the proper construction of Ex. D. 2. Ex. D. 2 describes itself as a permanent cowle given in favour of Subba Rao, by the proprietors of Thimrnapurarn village. It recites that they (the proprietors) have, because of the help rendered to them in litigation by Subba Rao, given him four visams of land described in the document, under a permanent cowle, with a condition however that a sum of Rs. 2 per year should be paid to them as kattubadi and that Subba Rao should improve the land extensively and enjoy the same freely from son to grandson in succession with rights of gift, sale, etc. It is stated earlier in the document that the property was left uncultivated to a large extent and that breaches were formed on account of recent heavy rains and wind and that the property was in need of repairs. The document further states,