MUMMINA MULAYYA Vs. KOTVALA APPANNA DIED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal under clause 15 of the Letters Patent from a decision of Ekbote, J., The facts lie in a narrow compass and are indisputable. Etikoppaka village in the Visakhapatnam District was an estate within the meaning of the Madras Estates Land Act, as amended in 1936. It was held by several persons jointly, two of whom Bangariah and Appallaraju, suffered decrees for the recovery of money obtained against them by one Thirupathayya. In execution of the money decree, the one-fifth share of the judgment-debtors in the village was sold to one Mullayya who obtained symbolical delivery on 22nd December, 1956. The auction purchaser brought a suit for partition O.S. No. 160 of 1958, to which the co-owners and tenants in possession of the inam lands are parties.

(2.) In another decree suffered by the abovementioned persons, 1/10th share of the inam village was sold in execution and the decree-holder was the purchaser. He brought a suit seeking partition of the i/ioth share. The suit was registered as O.S. No. 159 of 1958.

(3.) In both the suits preliminary decrees were passed and I.A. Nos. 263 and 264 of 1960 were presented to the Court for a final decree. The tenants were parties to the petitions and they resisted the claim of the plaintiff:, for a final decree on the ground that the Inams Abolition Act conferred on them the right to two-thirds share. The District Munsiff directed the appointment of a Commissioner with a view to pass the final decree of partition. The tenants questioned the correctness of the order in Revision Petitions Nos. 1148 and 1149 of 1961. They were allowed by Ekbote, J., and the order of the learned Judge has become final. The two revision petitions mentioned above were heard by the learned Judge with some other revision petitions and an appeal. The revision petitions arose out of small cause suits filed by the auction-purchasers for recovery of rent. The suits were decreed and the tenants challenged the validity of the rent decrees contending, inter alia, that to the extent of two-thirds share of the lands, the title became vested in them by virtue of the Inam Abolition Act. They did not apply for the grant of ryotwari pattas. Nor were there any proceedings before the appropriate tribunal, recogni ing their right to any specific portions of the demined property. The learned Judge allowed the civil revision petitions and modified the decrees of the District Munsiff upholding the decrees only to the extent of one-third of the amount in each of the several suits. The decision of the learned Judge has become final.