RAYAVARAPU SARASWATI Vs. U PEDAPPARAJU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is preferred by the plaintiff. It arises out of O.S. No. 415 of 1952 on the file of the District Munsifs Court, Vijayawada, for recovery of possession of suit property and damages for three years from 194849 to 195152.

(2.) The plaintiff's case is that the suit land belonged to one Kenhuru Subbamma and that she is her daughter's daughter. Subbamma was leasing out the suit land to the defendent. She executed a registered lease-deed for five years Ex. A-1, dtd. 12/3/1927 in favour of the defendant far the years 192732 and the defendant was cultivating the same since then. After Subbamma's death Durgamma inherited the properties, and enjoyed the same till her death in 1941. Thereafter, the plaintiff has become entitled to them and has been in enjoyment, Since the defendant refused to give up possession, the plaintiff issued at notice to quit, and filed this suit. The suit was resisted by the defendant on several grounds. The learned District Munsif framed appropriate issues. He found on issue No. 1 that the suit land is not an "estate" within the meaning of the Madras Estates Land Act, and the plaintiff was entitled to eject the defendant. He found that the plaintiff is the heir of Subbamma, and that she was entitled to eject the defendant from the suit lands. He also found that the suit is not bad for want of notice to quit, and that the defendant is not entitled to the benefits of the Andhra Tenancy Act. On those findings, he granted a decree for possession and Rs.126.00 as damages with interest and proportionate costs.

(3.) The matter was carried in appeal to the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Vijayawada, in A.S. No. 116 of 1957. The learned Subordinate Judge upheld the finding of the trial Court that the defendant was not entitled to occupancy rights and that he was liable to be evicted. He however held that the suit was bad far want of notice to quit and that the suit was also not maintainable under the provisions of the Andhra Tenancy Act. He also considered the question whether the suit is barred under the provisions of the Andhra Inam (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, though it was raised, for the first time before him and found that point also in favour of the defendant. On those findings, the learned Subordinate Judge reversed the decision of the trial Court, and dismissed the suit. Hence the appeal.