RAMACHANDRA SWAMY VARU Vs. N APPARAO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the decision of our learned brother, Ramachandra Raju, J., rendered in Transferred Appeal 755 of 1972 CRP Nos. 1741 of 1745 of 1971 and Transferred Appeal Nos. 755 to 758 of 1972, all heard together and disposed of by him by a common judgment, 'arises under the following circumstances. Nine suits , filed, four of them as Original suits and five as Small Cause suits, in the Court of the Additional Subordinate Judge, Srikakulam. All the nine suits were filed to recover rent or damages for use and occupation of some lands. The plaintiff who is the appellant before us, is the Deity of a temple viz., Sri Ramachandra Swamy Varu of Parlakimidi, and in this litigation, the Deity has been represented by its hereditary trustee. The Deity is the appellant in the transferred appeals and the petitioner in the civil revision petitions The total extent of the land involved in all the suits is Ac. 54-94 cents situated in Jaggayyapeta villsge of Gorrabenda village which was a Zamindari village of Parlakimidi Zamin estate, which was abolished and tuken over by the Government under the provision of the Madras Estates( Abolition and Conversion into ryotwari) Act, (Act No. XXVI of 1948). According to the plaintiff,the lands in question were ryoti lands in the estate and the temple was. the ryot for the lands and the various defendar is in the suits were under-tenants and after the Zamindari estate was abolished, the plaintiff-temple became entitled to ryotwari pattas from the Government in respect of these lands. When the defendants defaulted in payment of rents, the present suits were filed. A common defence was set up by the defendants in the respective suits and his common defence was that the lands were Darmila inam lands, the inamdar being the temple and the defendants had occupancy rights in the lands and when the Zamindari estate was abolished and taken over by the Government under the provisions of the Abolition Act, the rights of the temple in the lands became extinguished and the defendants became entitled to ryotwari pattas. The further contention, which was taken up by the defendants in the respective suits was that the suits were barred by res judicata as, in the earlier suits between the same parties, it was found that the lands were Darimila inam lands and, on the abolition of the Zamindari estate of Parlakimidi, the rights of the temple in the lands became extinguished and the defendants became entitled to ryotwari pattas from the Government.

(2.) The learned Additional Subordinate Judge, Srikakulam, tried all the nine suits together and disposed them of by common judgment. The learned Subordinate Judge found, on the evidence adduced before him, that the lands in question were not Darimila inam lands as contended by the defendants and he, therefore, held that the defendants had no occupancy rights or right to the grant of ryotwari pattas in respect of the lands in their occupation. The learned Subordinate Judge, however, dismissed the suits on the ground that they were barred by res judicate by reason of the finding given in the earlier suits that the lands were Darimila inam lands in which the rights of the plaintiff temple were extinguished in view of the abolition of the Zamindari estate. It was also held by the learned Subordinate Judge, that in the earlier litigation, the finding of the trial Court was confirmed by this court in transferred appeal No. 294 of 1964 and CRP Nos 1021 to 1028 of 1968. In view of this conclusion regarding the issue of res judicata, the learned Subordinate Judge dismissed all the nine suits on the ground that the plaintiff was not entitled to recover any amount either as rent or as damages for use and occupation of the lands from the defendants

(3.) Against the decision of the learned Subordinate Judge in the small causes suits, the plaintiff-temple filed Civil Revision petitions Nos 1741 to 1745 of 1971 in the Court and regular appeals against the decision in the original suits before the District Court Sri- kakulam. As common questions were involved in the civil revision petitions as well as in the appeals pending before District Court, Srikakulam the appeals filed before the District Court Srikakulam, were transferred to this court for disposal along with the revision petitions and they were numbered as transferred appeals, as stated above.