SRI RAJAH INNGANTI RAJAH GOPAL RAO BAHADUR GARU, PROPRIETOR OF SIRIPURAM ETC Vs. CHELIKANI VENKATASURYA RAO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal from a suit brought under Act 1 of 1876 for separate registration of a portion of a permanently settled estate by the Zemindar as against the defendants who, according to him, are the owners of that separate portion. The Zemindar applied to the Collector for separate registration, but as the parties did not agree before him, the Collector refused to act under Section 2, as the result of which the Zemindar brought this suit under Section 6 of the Act.

(2.) The lower Court has found in its judgment that defendants Nos. 1 to 4 are the owners of the suit lands, but it declined to pass a decree declaring that the suit land should be separately registered and assessed because it thinks, that by apportionment a new burden will be imposed upon the land which was not contemplated by the original grantor. That, however, is not a consideration for us to refuse the prayer of the plaintiff. All that we have to decide is who the owner of the land is. The way in which the land was dealt with is this. The land was given by the Zemindar of Bobbili to one Varahulu, his Serishtadar, on a kattupadi of Rs. 15 a year. The result of that transaction was, no doubt, to make Varahulu only a permanent lessee. But very soon thereafter the Zemindar at the request of the grantee passed an order remitting the entire kattupadi once for all, so that the land passed into the hands of Varahulu free from any kattupadi in favour of the Zemindar. The result of these two transactions taken together was, we think, in effect to make Varahulu the owner of the lands in question as if they had been gifted to him; for, subsequently, the Zemindar had no control or interest in them. That being so, the present defendants, who are the assignees of that right, should also be treated as owners of the lands. The necessary result of that finding is that the declaration sought for by the plaintiff should be given. If there was any understanding of which, however, there is no evidence in this case, that the grantor should himself pay the assessment imposed on the lands after separate registration, that would be a matter of contract between the grantor and the grantee, and by paying the assessment, the grantee will in such a case be able to recover the amount from the grantor. Such a case does not arise here, and we are not expressing any opinion about it.

(3.) In the result, the appeal must be allowed, the decree of the lower Court set aside, and a decree given under Section 6 of Act i of 1876 declaring that separate registration should be made of the lands in question.