ATTADA MAHALAKSHMI Vs. GUNNA AMMAYAMMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These three appeals are directed against the Judgment of the Subordinate Judge, Srikakulam, confirming that of the District Munsif, Sompeta. All the appeals raise common questions of law and, therefore, they could be disposed of by one judgment.

(2.) The subject-matter of these appeals is 5 acres, 28 cents in extent included in Survey No. 25 and situated in Varadarajapuram Village within the ambit of the Mandasa Estate. The plaintiff's case is that these lands were originally the private lands of the zamindar, that they were granted as personal service inams to one Madano Maharadhi for rendering services in the zenana, that in or about 1937 the Court of Wards representing the minor zamindar resumed these inams and granted a jeroyati patta to the said Maharadhi, that after Madano Maharadhi's death his sons sold the lands to the plaintiffs under a sale deed dated 16th February, 1951 and that notwithstanding the fact that the defendants were informed of the same and they promised to attorn to the plaintiffs, they had not done it nor had they paid rent to the plaintiffs nor surrendered possession of the lands to the plaintiffs. Hence it is that the suits giving rise to these appeals were instituted for ejectment and for rent. The defences raised were that these lands were darmila inams in which the defendants had acquired occupancy rights and, therefore, the Civil Courts had no jurisdiction to entertain the suits, that the resumption proceedings which resulted in the grant of patta to Madano Maharadhi were invalid and not binding upon the defendants, that Mandasa Estate having been abolished on 7th September, 1950, the property vested in the Government and the plaintiffs had no right to maintain the suits and that it was only the Government that could take proceedings for their eviction.

(3.) The trial Court, overruling the objections of the defendants, decreed the suits in the view that originally the lands belonged to the zamindar, that they were granted as service inams to Madano Maharadhi, that the inams were validly resumed and that therefore the jeroyati pattas granted in the resumption proceedings conferred rights on the pattadar. This was confirmed on appeal by the Subordinate Judge who agreed with the views of the trial Court on all the issues. Aggrieved by that judgment, the defendants have preferred these second appeals.