PASUPULETI KRISHNAMURTI Vs. ANNADASU BAPANAYYA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These appeals arise out of O.S. No. 53 of 1950 filed by respondents 1 to 5 on the file of the District Munsif's Court, Tenali. The suit having been decreed, the 1st defendant filed A.S. No. 142 of 1952 and the 2nd defendant filed A.S. No. 18 of 1952 on the file of the Subordinate Judge's Court, Tenali. Both the appeals having been dismissed, Second Appeals Nos. 2517 of 1952 and 804 of 1953 have been preferred to this Court by defendants 1 and 2.

(2.) The suit was instituted by respondents 1 to 5 for a declaration that the villagers of Erikalapudi were entitled to a right of easement in D. No. 493 covering acres 3-78, for a mandatory injunction directing the State of Madras to restore the D. No. 493 to its status quo ante as in 1948 and for a peimanent injunction restraining the State of Madras from passing any further orders in favour of the 1st defendant in respect of the land for any kind of occupation or user any further and for other reliefs. The case of the plaintiffs was that D. No. 493 originally formed part of the village of Pasupuletivaripalem, that, in Raktakshi cyclone, the villagers shifted to the present Erikalapudi village and that the entire area (formerly Pasupuletivari palem) was being used as the land of all the villagers as Mandavayalu wherein their cattle would stay and stray daily. It was also alleged that the suit land was being used for thrashing paddy, for boiling and drying turmeric, as a playground for the school-children in the village and for other general and communal purposes. In paragraph 6, it was alleged that on theeastein and western side of the suit land, there are clonkas used as cart-tracks from the village of Erikalapudi and that there is a bodi channel running across the suit land in continuation of the channel in D. No. 501 from east to west taking water into D. Nos. 478, 479, and 488, etc. The plaintiffs contended that the State of Madras had no right to assign this land to the 1st defendant as it was being used for communal purposes.

(3.) The 1st defendant filed a written statement admitting that the suit land was no doubt formerly a village site and that it was subsequently transferred to cattle stand porarnboke in accordance with the orders of the Special Deputy Collector in his No. 892 G-1. dated 9th July, 1914. In paragraph 9, he contended that the village had neither acquired any right by custom or usage in the suit lands nor did they acquire an easementary right therein. The State of Madras filed a written statement supporting the 1st defendant and contended that the grant in favour of the 1st defendant was made in accordance with the rules framed by the Madras State for giant of lands to political sufferers.