SATYAPRAMODA THIRTHASWAMULAVARU Vs. MULA GUNNAYYA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The principal question, if not the only question, that requires consideration and determination in this appeal is

(2.) The Plaintiff, Uttaradi Mutt, is a religious institution. Sri Satyapramoda Thirtha Swamulavaru is the Head of the Uttaradi Mutt. Sri M. V. Ramanacharya is the General Power of Attorney Holder and Agent of the said Head of the Uttaradi Mutt. Plaint A and B schedule properties situate in the village Ananthavaram in East Godavari District are inam lands and they were granted for the support of the Uttaradi Mutt. The lands are covered by title deed No. 5204. The grant covered both kudivaram and Melvaram interest in the lands. The Mutt has been enjoying the suit properties by leasing them to tenants.

(3.) The plaintiff Mutt through the then Power of Attorney Holder and Agent of the Head of the Mutt filed the suit O. S. No. 17 of 1908 in the Court of the District Judge, East Godavari at Rajahmundry for recovery of possession and for profits against the first defendant and the grandfather of the second defendant and some others. The said suit was compromised on 5-3-1910 and Ex. A-1 is the certified copy of the compromise decree in O. S. No. 17 of 1908. In pursuance of the said compromise, the first defendant and the grand-father of the second defendant, and after the latters death, the second defendant have been in possession of the plaint schedule properties paying the agreed rent Rs. 40-50 per year per acre. They were also paying the land revenue and water tax due to the Government. The defendants paid rents up to the end of Fasli 1365, corresponding to 1955-56, but they committed default in payment of rent due under the compromise decree since the fasli year 1366. Thereupon, the plaintiff got issued quit notice Ex. A-8, dated 31-12-1959 to the defendants stating that they have committed default in payment of rent due under the compromise decree Ex. A-1 and demanding the defendants to deliver possession of the suit schedule properties to the plaintiff by the end of the agricultural year 1959-60. It was also stated in the notice that the compromise decree was not valid and binding on the plaintiffs. The defendants received the notice, but the first defendant alone sent a reply notice Ex. A-9 dated 31-1-1960. It was also stated in the reply notice that the plaintiff-Mutt lost title to the suit lands by virtue of the notification issued under the Madras Inams Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari Act, 1948, (Act XXVI of 1948), that the suit properties vested in the Government and that the Government made a demand and collected revenue of Rupees 181-08 from him on 20-3-1960 for Fasli years 1365, 1366 & 1367. It was further stated in the reply notice that the plaintiffs remedy was only against the Government and that he was not liable to deliver possession of the plaint schedule lands to the plaintiff.