NADIMPALLI VENKATARAJU Vs. RAVIPADU PANCHAYAT BOARD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Ravipadu Panchayat Board, represented by its Presidente, who is the respondent in this Appeal, instituted the suit out of which it arises. The plaint alleged that the appellant who was the sole defendant in the suit was threatening to interfere with their possession of an extent of Ac.1-50 cents in the western portion of land registered as Survey No.149 situate in the village of Ravipadu. It further alleged in particular that the appellant was threatening to destroy the earthen road put up by the Board in the place of an old cart-track upon the land. The Board, therefore, prayed for two permanent injunctions-One restraining the defendant generally from interfering with their possession of the plot and the second restraining him from interfering with the road. The defence was that the appellant was 'a political sufferer' to whom the Government had made a grant of the land in dispute. The appellant also claimed to be in possession of the whole of it and denied the right of the Board to disturb his possession. He also asserted that there was no cart-track at any time upon the site and denied that the Board had laid a road upon any such track. He contended too that he himself was in possession and that the suit for a mere injunction was not maintainable. He insisted further that the State Government should be made a party because he was claiming under a patta granted by them. The learned District Munsif found that R.S. No.149 did not vest in the Board and also that the defendant was in actual possession. In his view, therefore, the plaintiff had no legal right to the site and in any case even if they had, their suit for mere injunctions was not maintainable. He, therefore, dismissed the suit, There was an appeal to the learned Subordinate Judge at Eluru by the plaintiff. The learned Subordinate Judge held that Survey No. 149 which was registered as tank poramboke was a tank which vested in the Panchayat Board under section 77 of the Madras Village Panchayats Act X of 1950, that the grant therefore made in favour of the defendant by the Government was ineffective, that there was no actual delivery of possession to him, that in any view his possession was not lawful and that the Board was entitled therefore to the injunctions prayed for. He also held that the Government was not a necessary party to the suit. In view of his findings, the appeal was allowed and the suit of the Board decreed with costs.

(2.) In this appeal, Mr. Parthasaradhi, for the defendant-appellant, has raised three contentions :--

(3.) As I am inclined to agree with the appellant on the last of these points, I do not propose to deal with the first two contentions. Survey No.149 is described in the Government Registers as tank poramboke. But there is no tank in the land. The plaint describes it merely as tank poramboke and states that there is a carttrack running through it. Paragraph 3 of the plaint states that "very often S.No 149 is being submerged by the water" of the drainage channel running from Ravipadu Village in the nighbourhood. In paragraph 4 it is expressly stated that the cart-track passes through this land and that it is vested in the Board under section 56(1)of the Madras Village Panchayats Act X of 1950.