(SREE RAJAH KAKARLAPUDI) VENKATA KRISHNAMARAJU BAHADUR GARU Vs. (SREE RAJAH CHINTALAPUDI) SURYANARAYANA RAJU BAHADUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The suit out of which this second appeal arises was brought by six plaintiffs who are now the registered proprietors of Panduru Mallavaram estate against the Secretary of State for India in Council (defendant l) and defendants 2 and 3 who are owners of certain lands for an order directing the separate registration of the defendant's land from the estate of Panduru Mallavaram. The villages of Panduru and Mallavaram were themselves originally part of the permanently settled estate of Uratla. In 1867 one Sagi Jagannadaraju became the proprietor of Uratla. In 1875 he granted these villages to his maternal uncle K. China Narasaraju by Ex. H-1 dated 7 April 1875. Portions of the estate passed by alienation to some of the present plaintiffs under Exs. P-F-4 dated 1917 and 1925 respectively. These two villages were separatly registered in 1875 (vide Ex. A dated 11 December 1875). Ex. B is the proceedings of the Board of Revenue dated 15 September 1875 fixing the peishcush on the subdivided estate.

(2.) In 1852 certain lands in the village of Mallavaram, now in the possession of the contesting defendants, were alleged by them to have been given to one Pushpati Subadrayya by the then proprietrix of Uratla in exchange for some other lands. Though the exchange is not clearly proved, the Subordinate Judge found that the defendants are the owners of the lands. On 18 May 1903 the plaintiffs predecessor-intitle as proprietor of Panduru Mallavaram applied to the Collector of Vizagapatam for the separate assessment and registration of the defendant's land. The Collector issued a notice under Section 2, Act 1 of 1876. The father of defendants 2 and 3 did not consent to the separate assessment and registration and the Collector accordingly rejected the application on 20 June 1904.

(3.) Again, in May 1924, the present plaintiffs applied to the Collector for separate registration and defendants 2 and 3 did not agree and the Collector refused to allow the separate registration by proceedings dated 13th.October 1925 (Ex. G). The plaintiffs therefore bring the present suit praying that the Court may direct the separate registration of the suit land from the Panduru Mallavaram estate. The District Munsif of Yellamanohilli decreed the suit and the Subordinate Judge on appeal confirmed that decree. Defendant 3 filed this second appeal. Defendant 2 did not appear in the Court below and it appears that he is not interested in the suit land. Three questions were raised before the Courts below and were all decided against defendant 3 and they are repeated before us.