RYALI MACHARAYYA Vs. PALAKOLLU CHINTANNA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The question in this Second Appeal is whether S. Madras Hereditary Village Offices Act (Act III of 1895) (hereinafter referred to as the Act) is a bar to the maintaibility of the suit.

(2.) The facts found by the courts below may be stated. The plaint schedule paroperty bearing Old Survey No. 182 and Re:Survey No. 231 of the extend of 2 acres 14 cents is situated in Magam village and is a potter service inam. Palakollu subbanna was the original service-holder, enjoyed the said inam during his life-time. After his death, the plaintiffs father Madidi became the service-holder and was in enjoyment of the said land. As Maridi has service inams in Innavalli also, he appointed the defendants father Narasayya as deputy for him to do service on his behalf of Magam. Narasayya died on 19-9-1948. After his death, plaintiffs father continued the defendants as deputies. When Maridi died on 9-11-1945 the authority. conferred by maridi on the defendants came to an end. Though the plaintiffs asked the defendants to deliver possession of the suit land, they refused to do so. In the circumsances, the plaintiffs filed O. S. No. 199 of 1948 on the file of the Court of the District Munsif of Amalapuram for recovery of possession of the property mentioned in schedule "A" annexed to the plaint and for profits.

(3.) Both the courts found that, after the deathof Maridi, the authority conferred on the defendants to deputise for him ceased and therefore the plaintiffs would be entitled to possession. The contention raised by the defendants that S. 21 of the Act would be a bar to the maintainability of the suit was negatived. Hence, the Second Appeal.