REDDI GOVINDA REDDI Vs. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Two plaintiffs filed O.S. No. 126 of 1953 in the District Munsif's Court, Chittoor, asking for a declaration in respect of 44 tamarind trees situated in the two villages of Vepanjeri and Venkatakrishnapuram in Chittoor taluk and for a permanent injunction restraining the sole defendant, namely, the State of Andhra from interfering with the plaintiffs' enjoyment of those trees. The learned District Munsif dismissed the suit with costs. Plaintiffs filed A.S. No. 11 of 1955 in the District Court, Chittoor. The learned District Judge dismissed the appeal with costs. Plaintiffs thereupon filed this Second Appeal.

(2.) The question that arises in this Second Appeal is as to what are the rights of the plaintiffs regarding the 44 tamarind trees and whether they are entitled to injunction as prayed for by them. The two plaintiffs laid claim to the 44 trees under a takid (Exhibit A-1) dated 15th November, 1920. The two lower Courts have held that Exhibit A-1 and the original takid dated nth November, 1917 are genuine and refer only to the plaint schedule trees. Plaintiffs contended on the basis of certain recitals in Exhibit A-1 that the proprietor of the estate, who issued the takid, sold 17 of the trees and granted a permanent lease (saswatha cowle) regarding the other 27 trees. Both the lower Courts came to the conclusion regarding the 17 trees that there was only a permanent lease, just as in the case of the other 27 trees and that there was no outright sale in favour of the plaintiffs. I have perused the original document (Exhibit A-1) which is in Telugu and have no hesitation in agreeing with the finding of the learned District Judge that, under that document, there was only a permanet lease of all the 44 trees. The learned Advocate for the plaintiffs relied on the words (in Telugu) ' Anthu ' and " Krayam " used in the document regarding the 12 trees which are in China Vepanjeri. But, when the words are read in their proper context and the document is read as a whole, it is clear that what was meant was only a permanent lease and not a sale.

(3.) The learned Advocate for the plaintiffs has contended that the rights of the plaintiffs under the permanent lease are saved by section 20 of the Madras Estates (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act (Madras Act XXVI of 1948 hereafter referred to for convenience as the Act) and that it is enforceable against the defendant. The learned District Judge has found that the effect of Exhibit A-1 was to grant permanent lease of all the tamarind trees concerned in the suit. I agree with his finding and hold that the appellants do not have any right other than the permanent lease and that, in particular, they have no right of ownership over 17 trees. The lease is a permanent lease. It is clear from Exhibit A-1 that the rights conferred are rights of permanent lease and substantially the same as under a tree patta for those trees. The right of the plaintiffs under the document is not that of a mere licensee under section 52 of the Easements Act but is that of a person holding a licence coupled with a grant i.e., persons having a, profit a prendre. The question is whether that right of the plaintiffs under Exhibit A-1 amounts to a right in land as contemplated in section 20 (1) of the Madras Estates Abolition Act. In Shanta Bai v. State of Bombay, (1958) S.C.J. 1078. the right of a person to ultimately cut and take for himself timber trees which were still standing on forest land arid which were not yet ripe for cutting and were taking nourishment by way of drawing sap through the soil, was decided to be that of a person having a licence with a right to profit a prendre. That right was referred to in the Judgment of Bose, J., as immoveable property