J C H FOWLER, RESQUIRE, TRUSTEE UNDER TRUST DEED EXECUTED BY THE RAJAH OF VIZIANAGRAM Vs. SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA IN COUNCIL REPRESENTED BY THE COLLECTOR OF GODAVARI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This suit and appeal arise cut of a conflict as to the ownership of the Eastern portion (247.28 sorts) of a Lanka in the Godavari river which is claimed by the Raja of Vizianaga ram (plaintiff and appellant) on the one hand and by Government (defendant and respondent) on the other. Plaintiff claims it both by right of accretion to his undisputed Perugu Lanka which lies higher up stream, and as a reformation on the site of a former Lanka belonging to him known as Pedda Lanka of his village of Kotipalli. Government also claim it both as a reformation on the site of a former Lanka belonging to the Government village of Sanapalli, the property of Government, and also as a subsequent accretion to the small portion of the same which alone was not submerged. The disputed Lanka admittedly began to be formed shortly after 1890; and by 1894 a portion of it was occupied under lease by one B. Nagayya, as lessee from plaintiff. Claims began to be put forward to it by the Government ryots of Sanapalli in 1896 alleging that it was the property of Government, and the controversy dragged itself out till 1905, when Government took steps to levy prohibitory assessment under the provisions of Act lit of 1905 Demands were issued in 1911 and this was followed by the present suit instituted on 30th July 1912.

(2.) The evidence is voluminous and has been discussed by the learned Subordinate Judge in its bearing on they claims above summarised, and on the other points arising in the case in a very elaborate and lengthy judgment, covering some 90 pages of printed matter. We have had the benefit of an exhaustive analysis of the case by the learned Advocate General on behalf of appellant and of the learned Government Pleader representing Government and as a result I cannot but concur in the main conclusions arrived at by the Subordinate Judge.

(3.) The first question for decision is whether the disputed Lanka covers a part of the former site of Government old submerged Sanapalli Lanka, or of plaintiff s similar Pedda Lanka of Kotipalli. Several plans of the locality prepared by professional officers of the survey department from time to time have been filed by both sides the nature and value in evidence of which have been fully discussed by the Subordinate Judge who has dealt with this question in Paragraphs 14 to 39 of his judgment. I agree with him in holding that by far the most valuable of these are the two Revenue Survey plans Exhibits I and II prepared in 1862 of the Government Sanapalli Lanka and of the portion of plaintiff s Kotipalli Lanka adjoining it to the west. These plans wore prepared in connection with the Revenue Survey of Sanapalli under Act XXVIII of 1860 in consequence of a boundary dispute between that village and the adjoining Zemindari village of Kotipalli and a comparison of the two shows the boundary then demarcated. There seems to be no doubt that this boundary was acquiesced in without question until the properties which it divided disappeared in the course of submersion. This was not for many years even in 1887 nearly a third of the original area remained (vide Exhibits III and XXXIX). There was orginally both before and. during suit a dispute as to the localisation of this boundary with reference to existing conditions, and two plans were prepared, Exhibits VI and XXXII to demonstrate this. Fortunately it is now admitted by appellant that as found by the Subordinate Judge, the suit land has been formed over the portion of what was demarcated according to these plans in 1862 as Sanapalli Lanka So that provided these plans are correct (which is not admitted), the question of reformation must be decided in favour of Government.