EMANI SUBBIAH Vs. KVENKATA LAKSHMIPATHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Munsif finds that the defendants predeeessors-in-title obtained Inam title-deeds for the land in dispute in 1863 and that they continued in possession since then. The extract from the Inam Register also shows that they were in possession since 1860. In appeal, the Subordinate Judge finds that the widow's possession continued till her death in 1903. If this is so, no doubt, no inference can be drawn in favour of the defendants from the Inam title-deed and Register. But the Subordinate Judge does not refer to these two documents. If they were in possession, then, the evidence of the widow's continued possession cannot be accepted at any rate without some explanation to explain those documents. If the defendants continued in possession after 1868, the effect of the Inam title-deed has to be considered. If the land belonged to the Government at that time or if they could then confer full ownership, the defendants would acquire title thereto. In any event when the defendants prove possession for over forty years, it would be for the plaintiff to show clearly that the property devolved on the widow. As the Subordinate Judge has not considered these documents and as they are material, we are unable to accept his findings. We must, therefore, ask him to submit revised findings on the evidence on record on the following questions: 1. Whether the defendants and their predecessors-in-title were in possession of the lands in suit under the Inam title-deeds and when and how did they get into possession?

(2.) What title did the defendants acquire to the lands under the Inam title-deeds?

(3.) Whether the suit is barred by limitation? 2. The findings will be submitted within six weeks, and seven days will be allowed for filing objections. 3. In compliance with the above judgment, the Subordinate Judge of Kistna at Ellore submitted the following. FINDINGS. 1. The suit, out of which this appeal arose, was instituted by the plaintiff, calling himself a reversioner to succeed to the estate of the last male holder Kocherlakota Ramanna. His widow Mahalakshmamma after enjoying her husband's property died on or about 12 March 1903. 2. Several defendants, who are in possession of different plots of land, were impleaded in the suit and we are now concerned with the two acres of land called "Sankara Pampu" in the possession of the defendants Nos. 17 to 19. 3. The defendants contended that out of 1 acre, 50 cents of Item No. 5, one acre was got by gift by their ancestors from Saravamma, the mother-in-law of Mahalakshmamma, who took possession of the entire property stating that her husband Viyyanna died last and not the husband of Mahalakshmamma and that the remaining fifty cents in the same Item No. 5 was obtained by the father of Nos. 16 to 18 defendants by purchase from one of the sons of one Akandam Reddemma, who had got the said fifty cents together with some other lands as gift from Mahalakshmamma. With regard to the other fifty cents their defence was that their ancestors got it by gift from Mahalakshmamma. These gifts are according to them, dated so far back as 1840.