RAVIPUDI ABBAYYA Vs. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) 1. Section A. No. 1172 of 1954 is directed against the judgment of the learned Subordinate Judge, Baptla, in A. Section No. 90 of 1953 reversing the judgment of the learned District Munsif of Bapatla in O. Section No. 309 of 1951. Section A. No. 1179 of 1954 is directed against the judgment of the learned Subordinate Judge, Bapatla in A. Section No. 91 of 1953 reversing the judgment of the learned District Munsif of Bapatla in O. Section No. 313 of 1951. 2. The plaintiffs in both the suits are brothers. The 1st defendant in both the suits was the State of Madras. These two suits were brought for a declaration of the title of the respective plaintiffs in the suits and for an injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with the plaintiffs enjoyment and possession of the lands in each of the suits. Both the suits were tried together as common questions of law and fact were involved and were accordingly disposed of by a common judgment. The appeals against the judgment and decree in each of these suits were also heard together by the learned Subordinate Judge, Bapatla, and were disposed of by him in a common judgment. 3. Defendants 2 and 3 in each of the suits were political sufferers and claim to be grantees of the lands in the suits from the Government by virtue of grants made in their favour in 1951. The 3rd defendant in O. Section No. 309 of 1951 figured as the find defendant in O. Section No. 313 of 1951. The contentions of the plaintiffs and the defendants in both the suits are the same. It is the case of the plaintiffs that they acquired the suit properties as heirs and successors to their maternal grand-father, Nallamuthu Venkatappa, who died some 40 years ago, that since then they had been in possession and enjoyment of the said properties, that prior to them their prede-cessor-in-title, their maternal grand-father and before him his predecessor-in-title, was in enjoyment of the suit properties from time immemorial, and, at any rate, for a period of 60 years. It is claimed in the plaints that the suit-lands are patta lands, that the plaintiffs brought the same under cultivation after spending considerable sums of money as the lands were subject to inundation and filling up the pits, that sometime in the year 1946 or 1947 the Government, declaring the lands as assessed waste, served notices under Section 7 of the Land Encroachment Act and that no action was taken to evict the plaintiffs under the said Act. The plaintiffs claimed that they paid cists for the suit lands all along and produced the cist receipts for the period 1921 to 1951. On 10-2-1951, the Government issued a notice to quit, against which notice the plaintiffs appealed to the Collector under the Land Encroachment Act and went up in revision to the Board of Revenue who stayed eviction on 20-7-1951. The plaintiffs served notices under Section 80 Civil Procedure Code on the Government on 29-8-1951 and filed the present suits after the expiry of two months thereafter, on 30-11-1951. 4. The 1st defendant, that is the Government, did not contest the suits either by filing a written statement or submitting any arguments on their behalf. Defendants 2 and 3 in each of the suits pleaded that they were grantees from the Govern--ment, that the properties in the suits belong to the Government, that the Government had granted these lands to them as political sufferers by way of temporary assignments, that the plaintiffs had no legal title to the suit lands nor had they been in possession for a period of over 60 years necessary for acquiring any title against the Government by adverse possession, that the plaintiffs were being booked as encoachers under the Land Encroachment Act and were assessed to penal assessment and as such their continuance in possession could not be regarded as adverse to Government but merely permissive and that therefore they could not acquire any right to the suit properties so as to entitle them, either to the declaration or the injunction asked- for in the plaints, 5. The learned District Munsif who tried the suits came to the conclusion that the omission on the part of the 1st defendant -- Government -- to contest the suits lent support to the claim of the plaintiffs based on their long possession and enjoyment, that the plaintiffs continued to remain, in possession of the suit lands until the date of suit, that the plaintiffs had established possession and enjoyment of the suit properties for over 60 years, and had therefore established possessory title to the same and that an action could lie on the strength of the possessory title which has to be safeguarded. The learned District Munsif also held that the grants in favour of the 2nd and 3rd defendants in O. Section No. 309 of 1951 and the 2nd defendant in O. Section No. 313 of 1951 had been cancelled by the Government themselves, on 27-3-1953 under Exs. A-31 and A-32 and as such these defendants had thereafter no right of any kind to resist the suit for an injunction restraining them from disturbing the possession of the plaintiffs. So holding, the learned District Munsif granted a decree in each of the suits in the following terms: