(MANDALA) DONGANNA Vs. MANDALA JAMMANNA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiffs sued in 1925 to recover possession of certain lands alleging that defendant 1 trespassed upon the same in 1923. The defendants denied the plaintiff's title and possession and also the trespass alleged in the plaint. The plaintiffs filed Ex. A, a patta No. 19 granted to them by the Raja of Parlakimedi in respect of the suit lands, and they also filed Exs. B to B-25, cist receipts in respect of the rent paid in respect of patta No. 19, Ex. A. Plaintiff 1 was also examined as the plaintiff's sole witness. On the side of the defendants, no documents were filed, but defendant 1 was examined as the sole witness for the defendants. The trial Court found that the plaintiffs had proved title and possession within 12 years prior to the suit, and accordingly decreed the suit in their favour. On appeal, the learned District Judge reversed the decision of the District Munsif and dismissed the suit, remarking that the patta, Ex. A, is not evidence of title, it is a mere bill for rent and on no showing can a revenue patta be considered as a title-deed.

(2.) After referring to an alleged admission of plaintiff's rights said to have been made by defendant 1, the learned District Judge stated that the plaintiffs had entirely failed to prove their title to the suit lands, and accordingly reversed the District Munsif's decision. The plaintiffs have preferred this second appeal.

(3.) No doubt the onus of proof in this case is on the plaintiffs. The learned District Judge referred to Ex. A as a "mere bill for rent" and observed that on no showing can a revenue patta be considered as a title-deed." Whether a patta should be considered as a mere bill or whether more weight should be given to it in any particular case would depend largely upon the circumstances on which a patta was issued. The remarks of Bhashyam Ayyangar, J., in Secy. of State V/s. Kasturi Reddi [1903] 26 Mad. 268 at p. 272, show that pattas issued by Government in respect of ryotwari lands are mainly intended to give information of the amount of revenue payable and the instalments by which it is to be paid. The observations of that learned Judge have been followed in Muthuveeravandayan V/s. Secy. of State [1906] 29 Mad. 461 at p. 467, Secy. of State V/s. Raghavachariar A.I.R. 1924 Mad. 913 and Secy. of State V/s. Janaki Tammayya Pantulu A.I.R. 1925 Mad. 859. The observations were made with reference to pattas issued in pursuance of orders passed in darkhast proceedings regarding lands at the disposal of the Government, the said orders being subject to appeal to higher revenue authorities as prescribed by rules framed by the Government.