PALAKOLANU MANIKYAM Vs. PALAKOLANU CHANDRASEKHARUDU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiffs instituted the suit out of which this second appeal has arisen in the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Narsapur against the defendant for a declaration that the decrees in R.S. No. 14 of 1922 on the file of the Sub-Collector, Narsapur, and A.S. No. 6690 of 1923 on the file of the Collector of Kistna are "null and void for want of jurisdiction and illegal and for a permanent injunction restraining the defendant from executing the decrees in the said suit and appeal."

(2.) The defendant's father was a village carpenter in a Government village governed by the Madras Act III of 1895. The lands which are the subject-matter of the present suit and also the subject-matter of R.S. No. 14 of 1922 are lands attached to the office of the village carpenter. On the allegation that the defendant was appointed as the village carpenter by the Revenue Authorities in 1921, he filed R.S. No. 14 of 1922 in the Court of the Sub-Collector of Narsapur Division for recovery of the lands claiming that they formed the emoluments attached to the carpenter service inam of Illapakurru village. The defendants in that suit, who were the present plaintiffs, raised various pleas, one of which was that the then plaintiff's father who was the carpenter in 1907 was dispossessed by them of the lands in question, that they had acquired title to the lands by virtue of adverse possession for more than the statutory period and that the mere tact : that the then plaintiff was appointed as the village carpenter in 1921 could not give him a right to recover the properties to which the defendants had acquired (according to them) title by adverse possession for more than 12 years. They also pleaded that the Revenue Court had no jurisdiction to entertain the suit. Both the Sub-Collector and on appeal the District Collector overruled the pleas of the then defendants and decreed the plaintiff's suit in his favour and directed that the defendants should surrender possession of the properties to the then plaintiff with mesne profits.

(3.) The present suit has been filed by the present plaintiffs (who were defendants in the revenue suit) for a declaration that the decrees passed by the Sub-Collector, and the District Collector in appeal, are null and void and illegal and also for an injunction restraining the successful plaintiff in the revenue suit, who is the defendant in the present suit, from executing those decrees. Both the Lower Courts have dismissed the suit. Hence this second appeal has been preferred by the plaintiffs.