DIMMITI PULLAYYA Vs. ANDAVOLU NAGABHUSHANAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal against the judgment of the Subordinate Judge. Vijayawada, in O.S. No. 29 of 1953 by which the plaintiff's suit was decreed declaring that Venkatapuram village in the District of Krishna was not an estate within the meaning of section 3, clause (2) (d) of the Madras Estates Land Act, 1908 (I of 1908) and that the notification G.O. No. 2034, Revenue Department dated 20th July, 1949 made under the Madras Estates Land (Reduction of Rent) Act, 1947, (XXX of 1947) was void and not binding on the plaintiffs.

(2.) The plaintiffs laid the suit on 20th January, 1953, against the then State of Madras (1st defendant) and some of the tenants of the lands in Venkatapuram Kandrika in a representative capacity. Their case was the following : They were the owners of Venkatapuram Kandrika comprised in Kanumolu Sub-Registry of Krishna District. The said Kandrika was carved out of the main village Telaprolu and granted in Fasli 1157 to the ancestors of the plaintiffs on Ghaturbhagam tenure by Jagannadha Apparao Bahadur, Zamindar of Nuzvid. Later on the Chaturbhagam tenure was converted by the Zamindars into Bil-makta Kattubadi of 16 1/2 varahas (equal to Rs. 69-9-6). The inam was enfranchised subject to the payment of quit rent of Rs. 2-8-0 per year under title deed No. 1417. Therefore the Kandrika was not an estate within the meaning of section 3 (2) (d) of the Madras Estates Land Act, and the notification under the Madras Estates Land (Reduction of rent) Act reducing the rents of lands in the Kandrika was ultra vires. The State of Madras filed a written statement repudiating the claim of the plaintiffs and contending inter alia that the Inam Fair Register did not show that Venkatapuram was the grant of only a portion of the village of Telaprolu and that the notification was competent.

(3.) The learned Subordinate Judge accepted the plaintiff's case and decreed the suit. The appellants before me are the tenants of the lands in the village. They have filed the appeal although they were not made parties to the suit, on account of the suit having been filed against the tenants in a representative capacity. The point for consideration is whether Venkatapuram is not an estate within the meaning of section 3 (2) (d) of the Madras Estates Land Act.