GANTA BANGARIGADU Vs. PALTHERU ATCHUTARAMAYYA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) On the 16 September, 1928 the first respondent was granted a patta by the second respondent for land situate within the jurisdiction of the District Munsif's Court of Parvatipur. The land covered by the patta admittedly forms part of an estate within the meaning of the Madras Estates Land Act, 1908. The appellants were in possession of the land at the time, but they were trespassers. The first respondent did not take steps immediately to evict them and in fact allowed them to continue in possession of the land until the 30 September, 1929, when he filed the present suit in the District Munsif's Court for their eviction. The defence of the appellants was successful. The District Munsif held that the first respondent was not entitled to maintain the suit as his patta had expired when the plaint was filed and the landholder had not been made a party.

(2.) On appeal by the first respondent the Subordinate Judge of Vizagapatam concurred in the decision of the District Munsif. The first respondent then appealed to this Court. His appeal was heard by King, J, who decided that the second respondent, as the landholder, should be made a party to the suit and passed an order to this effect. As the result, the case was remanded to the Subordinate Court for a finding as to whether the appellants had been in adverse possession of the property for twelve years. The Subordinate Judge after considering the evidence adduced by the parties on this question reported that the appellants had not been in possession for twelve years on the date of the filing of the suit. King, J., was on leave when the report was received by this Court and therefore it had to be considered by another Judge. The case came before Wadsworth, J., who on the finding of the Subordinate Judge, allowed the appeal and decreed the suit. A certificate having been given under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent the respondents have preferred the present appeal.

(3.) In the opinion of King, J., the case came within Venkayya V/s. Sateyya (1911) I.L.R. 37 Mad. 281. The appellants say that the learned Judge here erred. They also advance the contention that they must be deemed to have been in adverse possession up to the date when the second respondent was made a party as the result of the order of King, J., namely the 31 March, 1938 and not merely up to the date of the institution of the suit. If the 31 March, 1938 is the date which has to be taken, the appellants have, of course, been in adverse possession for over twelve years. The appellants have advanced the further argument that the patta cannot be relied upon by the first respondent because it has not been registered.