NORI VENKATA RAMA DIKSHITULU Vs. RAVI VENKATAPPAYYA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The question arising for decision in these two appeals is whether S. No. 333 of Vatticheruku village had been dedicated for raising Dharma Vanam or (sic) for public benefit. The appellant in one of the aforesaid appeals is one out ot the four plaintiffs to a suit for permanent injunction, restraining the defendants from interfering with their possession and en-joyment of part of the said property. In the Other the appellants are defendants 1, 2 and 4 to 7 to a claim under Section 92 of the C. P. C. for removing them from the office of trustees, for appointing new trustees and vesting the property in them. The land (sic) measures Acs. 8.28 cents and originally belong-ed one Nori Lakshmipathi Somayajulu, who was an ancestor of the appellants.In 1788 he had dedicated the property to charity and the exact nature of this endowment is now in dispute. There is no written document showing how the property had been gifted; but Ex. B-1, an extract from the Inam Register of 1868, describes the land as Dharmadayam. Its third column states the pro-perty as dry, tamarind trees 18 and the eighth column mentions it as for the public benefit. The 11th column shows one Nori Lakshmipathi to be the per-son who had made the grant and the 13th column states the same person as the grantee. Finally the 21st column says: "As this is charitable tope, this is to be con-firmed without Quit rent."The Inam Commissioner confirmed it on permanent tenure, which was followed by a title deed in favour of three persons, Ex. B-2 being the aforesaid deed. Therein the Inam Commissioner acknowledges the grantees title to a Dharmadayam inam consisting of the right to the Government revenue on land claimed to be Acs. 8-42 cents dry and held for the public benefit.

(2.) No dispute appears to have arisen till the year 1941, when wet cultivation was introduced in the locality. Prior to the aforesaid year the trustees

(3.) On 18-7-1949, four persons had filed a suit for prcmanent injunction, wherein the third and the fourth plaintiffs were alleged to be the full owners and also defendants 13 to 17 in the case. It is alleged in the plaint that their ancestor conceived the idea of raising tamarind tope for public benefit without relinquishing his right in the soil thereof; that the Government on its part have accepted the idea and granted him an inam in respect of land revenue only to enure so long as the tope was maintained for public benefit and that accordingly on some part of the land a tope was raised, the rest, on which trees could not be planted, having been enjoyed by him and his descendants through cultivation.The plaint further alleges that from recent past the land was found no longer fit for raising and maintaining the tope and the charity had become incapable of performance. The plaint then avers interference by the defendant Nos. 1 to 12 in the plaintiffs enjoyment and in their agricultural operations. On the aforesaid allegations it prayed for the permanent injunction. Most of the documentary and all the oral evidence in these appeals had been led in the aforesaid suit. The trial Court dismissed the suit and the appeal against the decree was heard by the same Subordinate Judge with the other suit under Section 92 of the C. P. C.