(1.) These are two revisions filed by K.Ramakrishna Rao against the Orders passed by the District Collector, East Godavari, in S.A. Nos. 3 and 4 of (956 on his file : C.R.P. No. 1942 of 1957 is against the Judgment of the District Collector in S.A. No. 3 of 1956 regarding the lands concerned in the ' B ' schedule of the plaint. C.R.P. No. 1943 of 1957 is against the Judgment of the District Collector in S.A. No. 4 of 1956 relating to the mesne profits which have been disallowed.
(2.) Both the Civil Revision Petitions have arisen out of a common judgment of the District Collector in Appeals S.A. Nos. 3 and 4 of 1956 which had been filed against a single order of the Sub-Collector in S.S. No. 6 of 1955 dated 7th June, 1956 The relevant facts of the case are as follows :- One Mallayya was the registered holder of the office of Blacksmith (artisan) and was in possession of the suit ' A ' and ' B ' schedule lands, which are the Blacksmith Service Inam lands of Yempalli village, Ramachandrapuram Taluq in East Godavari district. The relationship of the parties is as shown in the genealogical tree given below :- <IMG>JUDGEMENT_433_ANDHWR1_1960Image1.jpg</IMG> The and respondent is in possession of ' B ' schedule lands of an extent of Act 4-69 cents and the 1st respondent is in possession of 'A' schedule lands of an extent of Ac. 4-53 cents. Plaintiff's contention was to the following effect :- Originally, the father of the plaintiff's paternal grandfather Latchanna held the office. He was in possession of the entire lands of 'A' and 'B' schedules and rendered service. Thereafter, Latchanna, the plaintiff's paternal grandfather (and son of Mallaiah) became entitled to the service and the inam lands described in the 'A' and 'B' schedules. Latchanna rendered service and enjoyed the said service inam. Later, Latchanna resigned the post. The office and the suit schedule lands passed to his sons Veerabhadrudu and Kesava Mallayya (the first defendant) and they enjoyed the lands jointly. The plaintiff, Kesava Rama krishna Rao (alias Ramakrishniah) is the son of Veerabhadrudu. Veerabhadrudu resigned his office in 1948. Plaintiff was then a minor, having born on 26th April, 1934. The resignation of Veerabhadrudu was accepted and the plaintiff and the 1st defendant (Kesava Malliah) were registered as the office-holder by the Revenue Divisional Officer, Rajahmundry, on 10th March, 1948. The 2nd defendant has no manner of right but still she is in possession of the ' B ' schedule lands. Her possession is wrongful. Kesava Mallayya (1st defendant) along with Kesava Sathemma (and defendant) colluded and denied the plaintiff's father's rights and they ousted him (plaintiff's father) from ' A ' and ' B ' schedule lands. The 1st defendant is enjoying 'A' schedule lands with the 3rd defendant as his tenant. D-2 is enjoying the lands through her tenants D-4, D-5 and D-6. Plaintiff became a major in 1952 and he filed the suit within three years after attaining majority. The plaintiff prayed that he may be awarded mesne profits for three years (beginning from 1952-1953) prior to the date of decree and also half share in the entire land (of A and B schedule) or at least the entire ' B ' schedule property may be decreed in his favour.
(3.) The 1st defendant contested the suit supporting the claim of the plaintiff to the extent of saying that the branch of the plaintiff and of the 1st defendant was entitled to the whole land (of A and B schedules) but pleading in addition that he (D-1) was entitled to be in possession of half the total lands and was therefore entitled to continue undisturbed of the ' A ' schedule lands which constituted approximately half of the total artisan inam lands. D-3 filed a written statement supporting the case of D-1. The and defendant pleaded that her branch (namely, her father-in-law's branch ) was also doing service and was consequently in rightful possession of the 'B' schedule lands and that she had been in possession for a long time in her own right (getting service rendered) and was entitled to continue undisturbed. D-3, D-4, D-5 and D-6 adopted the written statement of D-2. The learned Sub-Collector framed the following points for decision.:- (1) Whether the plaintiff has any title to the Blacksmith Service of the village of Yempalli ? (2) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the declaration prayed for and ejection of the defendants from the plaint schedule lands ? (3) Whether the suit is barred by res judicata ? (4) To what mesne profits, if any, is the plaintiff entitled ? and (5) To what relief, if any, are the parties entitled ?