VALLURI APPAYYA Vs. DOSAPATI NARASIMHAMURTY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Letters Patent Appeal is preferred by the defendants by leave granted by Madhava Reddy, J., while dismissing S.A. No. 668 of 1972 arising form O.S. No. 74 of 1960 on the file of the Court of the District Munsif, Rajam.

(2.) The plaintiffs filed a suit alleging that they are the owners of the suit lands situated in Venkatarayuni Agraharam and that the defendants are their tenants. The said Agraharam is a pre-settlement minor inam and that when the Rent Reduction Act was enforced by the State, the defendants stopped paying the rent whereupon the plaintiffs filed suit O.S. No. 616/1953 on the file of the learned District Munsif, Rajam for a declaration that the said Act is not applicable and that the said suit was decreed. The defendants were therefore estopped from contending that the lands are situate within a whole inam village and that therefore it is an estate within the meaning of Section 3 (2) (d)of the Madras Estates Act and that since they were not parties to the suit O.S. No. 616 of 1953, they are not bound by the decision therein. They claimed occupancy rights in the said lands and submitted that they would be liable at the most in a sum of Rs. 60 only per year in view of the low yield. Other pleas regarding misjoinder etc., were also raised. The main question that fell for decision in the suit therefore was whether the suit land is an estate within the meaning of Section 3 (2) (d) of the Madras Estates Land Act.

(3.) The trial Court held, on a consideration of the oral and documentary evidence, that Venkatarayuni Agraharam is clearly an estate within the meaning of Section 3 (2) (d) of the said Act and that the defendants are not bound by the decree in O.S. No. 616 of 1953. In view of the finding on the main issue, the suit was dismissed. The plaintiffs filed an appeal which was dismissed confirming the findings of the Trial Court. S.A. No. 176 of 1974 (Andh Pra) was preferred in this Court which came up before Parthasarathi, J, for final disposal. The learned Judge allowed the appeal on the ground that both the courts below have illegally excluded from consideration Ex. A-5, a very material piece of evidence and therefore remanded the matter to the lower appellate Court for fresh disposal according to law. On this occasion, the first appellate Court allowed the appeal holding that the said Agraharam is not an estate. The defendants filed an appeal which has been dismissed by Madhava Reddy, J. Hence this Letters Patent Appeal by leave.