RAYAPATI VENCATA VASUDEVA ROW AND MOORA SREERAMULU Vs. SREEMANTI RAJA YERLAGADDA MALLKARJUNA PRASAD NAIDU BAHADUR ZEMINDAR GARU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) SOME clauses in the pattah are objected to. We think the Courts below are right as to the trees and new agricultural buildings. We must strike out the clause No. 6 as to double assessment on porambokes encroached upon. Poramboke is no part of the holding. And a pattah, which has to contain the terms of the tenancy as regards a particular holding, has no business to make provision for a case of trespass upon other land not included in the holding. The landlord has to seek protection in the general law. We modify the decrees of the lower appellate Court by striking out clause No. 6 of the pattah and otherwise, we dismiss the second appeal with costs.