STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH Vs. GANDI RAMAMURTHY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is presented under clause (15) of the Letters Pattent against the judgment of our learned brother, Kumarayya, J., with his leave; The suit out of which the appeal arises was brought by the plaintiffs for a declaration that defendant 1, the State of Andhra Pradesh, had no right in the five tanks in the Ventari mutta and that it should be restrained from interfering with the plaintiffs and defendants 2 to 5 from exercising their right to ownership in the said tanks.

(2.) The material facts are briefly these. Plaintiffs and defendants 2 to 5 are the owners of the Ventari mutta within the ambit of Jaggampet estate. The tanks in dispute are situate in that mutta. A mutta is an extent of land granted prior to the permanent settlement by a zamindar to the service holders. Jaggampet estate was taken over by the Government under the provisions of the Madras Estates (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari ) Act (XXVI of 1948). After the abolition of the zamindari, the State Government-defendant proceeded on the assumption that the mutta along with the tanks had vested in them. The plaintiffs' claim was that along with defendants 2 to 5 they were the owners of the tanks, that the grant of mutta included the tanks in the mutta. In spite of it, the first defendant w'as trying to interfere with their free enjoyment of these tanks.

(3.) The suit was resisted by the first defendant mainly on the defence that the tanks being irrigation tanks, vested in the Governipent when the Jaggampet estate was notified under the provisions of the Madras Act (XXVI of 1948) and as such the plaintiffs could not be regarded as the owners of the tanks in question. The trial Court passed a decree in favour of the plaintiffs, being of opinion that there was sufficient circumstantial evidence to establish the case of the plaintiffs that the suit tanks were included in the grant and that the Government had not acquired a right to them under the provisions of the Estates Abolition Act. On appeal by the first defendant, the lower appellate Court came to the contrary conclusion on the controversy as to whether the plaintiffs were entitled to the tanks as owners thereof. The Subordinate Judge held that, in any event, as the- demand for the mutta was included in the assets of the zamindar, the tanks along with the mutta vested in the Government under section 3 (b) of Act (XXVI of 1948).