DEVULAPALLI JANAKIRAMAYYA Vs. MADDUKURI PEDA JOGA RAO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against the Judgment of Krishna Rao, J., in C.M.A. No. 413 of 1951. It arises out of a suit in ejectment, O.S. No. 120 of 1949 on the file of the Court of the District Munsif, Peddapur, brought by the appellants against the respondents. The lands in dispute comprised of two parcels of mam lands, S. No. 137 measuring 2 acres 46 cents and S. No. 143 measuring 10 acres 3 ceats situate in Tirupathi Agraharam. This Agraharaui is a hamlet of Nellipudi village, which was originally a part of Tolapalli estate and was sold along with 24 other villages in 1879 by the mansabdar of Totapalli to the Rajah of Pittapur The suit lands were originally granted in inam by the dc facto mansabdar Yanumula Venkayamma to one Tadepalli Somanadha Sastry as a personal inam free of rent. This inam was confirmed by the Inam Commissioner on 2oth March, 1884 subject to the payment of quit rent of Rs. 7-8-0. On the 20th of April,1875 Yedida Latchanna purchased these lands from Tarangam who was a brother of the original grantee. One of the plaintiffs i.e., the 1st appellant is the purchaser of 3/4 interest in the inam lands in a Court sale held in or about 1935 and the other is the grandson of Yedida La lchanna.

(2.) The chief recitals in the plaint were that the two respondents were cultivating the lands in question on yearly oral leases obtained from them and have been holding over for some years prior to the suit. On this footing a claim for Rs. 600 towards damages for use and occupation for 1948-49 was put forward. Recovery of possession of the lands was also sought by the appellants. The suit was contested , inter alia, on the defences that the suit lands lie in an inam estate in which the respondents have occupancy rights and that consequently the civil Courts have no jurisdiction to try the suit. Thus, the main controversy revolved round the question whether the respondents were entitled to permanent rights of occupancy in these lands under the Madras Estates Land Act and whether the suic was cognizable by the civil Court.

(3.) The trial Court decreed the suit in the view that as the Government fully assessed the Totapalli estate in 1881 and took it under their own managements, the suit lands could not be said to be situated in an estate in which the respondents had obtained occupancy rights. The trial Court fixed Rs. 400 as damages for the year 1948-49. The respondents preferred an appeal to the Subordinate Judge, Kakinada. They filed as additional evidence Exhibit B-2, a registration extract of the sale-deed, dated 2Oth June, 1879 by and under which Nellipudi as also several other villages were conveyed to the Rajah of Pittapuram. The Subordinate Judge decided that these lands constituted darimila inams, that they continued to be in an estate as the village of Nellipudi was sold to the Rajah of Pittapuram before the Government took over the remainder of the Totapalli estate and that the enfranchisement proceedings were null and void as the proprietors and not the Government had reversionary rights in respect thereof. He accordingly held that the respondents had acquired occupancy rights and could not be evicted from the lands and that the appellants' claim for recovery of rent could be determined only in a revenue Court. In this view he directed the plaint to be returned for presentation to the proper Court in regard to the relief for recovery of rent.