G. BALARAMIREDDI Vs. PATUN VISHWANADHAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a Letters Patent Appeal against the Judgment of Viswanatha Sastry, J. whereby C. M. P. No. 679/55 and S. A. No. 933 of 52 have been decided against the defendant -appellants. C. M. P. No. 679 of 55 was an application under S.4 (i) and (ii) of the Andhra Inam Tenants Protection Act, 1954 for the stay of hearing of S. A. No. 933 of 52. S. A. No. 933 of 52 arose out of a suit for partition and delivery of possession of 13/48th share brought by some of the co -sharers in the Paturivari Khandriga against 15 defendants of which defendants 1 to 3 and 5 to 7 are the appellants before us.

(2.) THE brief facts of the case are: that the Suit lands, about Ac. 25 -00 in area, forming part of Paturivari Khandriga were admittedly owned in common by several co -sharers. The plaintiffs and defendants 8 to 15 are the present sharers. It Is beyond controversy that defendants 1 to 7 of whose family the 1st defendant is the Manager have been in possession of the suit lands for some decades. In 1931 one of the sharers of the Khandriga brought a suit O. S. No. 22 of 1931 on the file of the Sub -Court Nellore for partition and separate possession of his share.

(3.) THIS application was resisted on two grounds, viz., (i) that the Act had no application because the khandriga was in ryotwari village at distinct from an inam village, and (ii) that there was no subsisting tenancy as it was terminated by notice to quit before Suit. The learned Judge having considered the historic background of this legislation, the purport and language of section (2) of the Act came to the conclusion that the word 'hamlet' or 'khandriga' used in that Section must be read with the words "of an inam village and not disassociated therefrom. He held that the khandriga in question not being in inam village but in a ryotwari village, the Act did not apply to the case.