VELLANKI SIVA KUTUMBA RAO Vs. VELLANKI SARVALAKSHAMMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal arises out of a suit, which originally was for an injunction restraining the defendants from cutting the trees and interfering with the plaintiffs' possession, but after amendment became a suit for possession itself. The suit was dismissed by the District Munsif, Kanigiri, and that judgment was upheld by the Subordinate Judge, Kavali, in appeal. Only the second plaintiff, who was the sole appellant in the first appeal also, has preferred this Second Appeal. The facts are few and may be shortly stated : The plaintiffs and the first defendant's husband were the owners of Mylavaram village, which was granted as an Agraharam. There is a land known as Nadigedda, situate therein, covering an area of Ac. 33-30 cents. It is admittedly a pasture land. The plaintiffs' contention was that, they were grazing their cattle on these lands and were allowing the cattle of others too to graze on payment of grazing fees ; that defendants 2 to 4, without the permission of the plaintiffs, attempted to graze their cattle and subsequently defendants 5 to 30 trespassed into the lands, cut the trees and attempted to plough the lands. The plaintiffs, with these allegations, therefore, brought the above suit in the year 1946. The defendants contended that these pasture lands were not in Mylavaram village but in Jammalamadaka village in Guntur district and the lands belonged to the Rajah of Venkatagiri, who was leasing the said lands together with other pasture lands, on payment of fees. After sometime, however, they themselves cultivated the lands under the ' Grow More Food ' scheme. In short, they denied the claim of the plaintiffs.

(2.) An year after the filing of this suit Mylavaram was notified under the Madras Estates (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act (XXVI of 1948) along with the parent estate of Venkatagiri. The Government was then impleaded as a defendant.

(3.) As no notice under section 80, Civil Procedure Code, was given to the Government before they were thus impleaded, a plea as to the maintainability of the suit as against them was taken. The Government further contended that the suit lands were in Jammalamadaka and not in Mylavaram village which is an under-tenure village. The learned District Munsif came to the conclusion that the suit lands were situate in Mylavaram village, that this Agraharam is an under-tenure estate which vested in the Government as a result of notification, that the plaintiffs have no right therefore to prosecute the suit or claim the lands even though the defendants are trespassers and that the suit against the Government was not maintainable for want of notice.