PINNINTY PEDA GOVINDAYYA Vs. PINNITY SUBBA RAO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is filed by defendants 1 to 6 and 8. The respondents filed a suit O. S. 32 of 1959 on the file of the Suborinate Judgr, Bapaiia under section 92 of the Code of Civil Procedure, after having obtained the sanction of the Advocate General, for framing a scheme for the management of a public trust consisting of Ac 19-96 cents of tamarind tope situate in S.No. 36 of Annavaram village in Bapatla taluk, Guntur District. The case of the plaintiffs is that the ancestors of the Pinninty family dedicated the suit land and tope for the benefit of the pubiic, that a title deed No.397 was granted at the time of the Inam Commission in favour of Pinninti Lakshmipathi as trustee of the charitable tope free of tax, that ever since, the said tope was being enjoyed by the members of the public, that in August 1958, the defendants cut and carried way some of the tamarind trees, that the defendants in breach of the trust, obtained a patta in their own name under the Inams Abolition Act, that the defendants had betn cultivating an extent of about Ac. 5.00 of the trust property for their own use and that a scheme for the administration of the trust should be framed by appointing new trustees by removing the defendants from their trusteeship and for a rendition of accounts against the defendants.

(2.) The defendants contested the suit alleging that the land was not the subject matter of trust, that their ancestors dedicated only the fruit of the tamarind trees for the benefit of the villagers, that their obligation to distribute tamarind fruit ceased as a result of the levy of full assessment on the land under the provisions of the Inams Assessment Act, 1955, that in view of the patta granted to the defendants under the Inams (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1956, the defendants became the ryotwari owners of the suit-land, that the said proceedings cannot be questioned in a civil suit, that there was no breach of trust on their part, that they are not liable to render any account to the plaintiffs, that they cannot be disturbed from the possession of the suit property and that no scheme can be framed in respect of the suit property. The court below recorded the following findings: (i) that the suit land itself was dedicated by the original owner Pinninty Lakshmipathi who constituted himself as the trustee of the property and that it was not merely the fruit of the trees that was the subject matter of dedication; (ii) that the decision of the Inams Tahsildar levying full assessment did not operate to extinguish the trust; (iii) that the patta granted in favour of the defendants under the Inams Abolition Act does not in any way affect the trust which was granted in favour of the public; (iv) that the defeadants committed acts of waste and breach of trust; and (v) that it is sufficient if the defendants are directed to furnish an account of the profits received by them for a period of six years prior to the suit.

(3.) In view of these findings, the Court below passed a preliminary decree for the framing of a scheme wish a direction to remove the defendants from their trusteeship and for delivery of possession of properties to the new trustees to be appointed under the scheme. There was a further direction that both parties should submit proposals to the Court for framing the scheme decree. Aggrieved by the said decree, the defendants filed the above appeal in this Court.