PALERU VENKATESWARLU Vs. POTINA VENKATESWARULU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Pothina Vari Kunta a fresh water tank is situated in the hamlet of Daggupadu viz., Pothinavaripalem. It has been in existence from times immemorial and has been serving the needs of the villagers. The tank is endowed with 13 acres and 16 cents of land for the repairs and up-keep of the tank. The tank and the endowed property have been from the inception under the care and management of the trustees. The trustees used to derive income from the land and utilise the same for maintaining the tank in proper condition. The defendants are now the trustees and are in possession of the land and are charged with the obligation of maintaining the tank in repairs out of the income of the land. The trustees have been deriving income from the land but have not spent anything on repairs of the tank. They have been utilising the income for themselves. They are partitioning the property. They are also now trying to alienate the property as though it is their own. The tank is not in a proper condition and has now become incapable of storing water. The villagers are put to a great inconvenience. They therefore obtained the sanction of the Advocate-General and filed the suit for settling a scheme, for the removal of the trustees and for rendering of accounts by the trustees.

(2.) The defendant disputed that the extent of land is not what is shown by the plaintiffs but is only Acs. 10-80 cents. They denied that the suit tank was excavated by the ancestors of the defendants. The lands shown in the schedule and the lands surrounding them were owned by the successors of the original founder of the tank. The land did not constitute a grant or endowment. The land is an inam land personally granted to the ancestors of the defendants although the grant was burdened with service to keep the tank in repairs. The defendants have been repairing the tank regularly and have not misappropriated the amount. They have no intention of alienating the lands. The defendants are not liable to account. They are not trustees and therefore no question of their removal arises.

(3.) The trial Court framed as many as seven issues. The important issue with which we are now concerned ins the additional issue. It reads : "Whether the suit is maintainable?"