PRATIVADI BHAYANKARAM, TIRUVENKATACHARYULU Vs. SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA IN COUNCIL REPRESENTED BY THE COLLECTOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The facts out of which this second appeal arises may be shortly stated. There used to be an ancient estate known as the estate of Bellamkonda in Sattempalli Taluk of the present Guntur District but formerly Kistna District. This estate belonged to the Malraju family. Some time in the 18 century the then holder of the estate, namely, Deshmukh Desh Pandya Malraju Ramarayanim Garu, granted an agraharam of the village of Palidevarlapadu to one Prativadi Bhayankaram Vedantacharyulu Garu. The grant was an absolute one but liable to pay kattubadi of Rs. 89-7-10. The Kistna District Manual by Mr. Mackenzie, page 318, shows that in the year 1818 the then owner of Bellamkonda Estate gave away his estate to Government by his will. His descendants are now in receipt of an allowance from Government. The Government thereby stepped into the Zamindar's shoes and were in receipt of the kattubadi. At the time of the Inam Commission, 1860, the village was enfranchised. Exhibit V-a is the inam register for the whole village. This document shows that the extent of the whole village was 521 acres 37 cents. The porambokes in the village were of the extent of 56 acres 22 cents and there were minor inams of 132 acres 90 cent. Deducting the porambokes and the minor inams amounting to 189 acres 12 cents the extent of the rest of the village was 332 acres 25 cents. Details are given in column 5 of the dry extent (327 acres 15 cents) and the wet extent (5 acres 10 cents). Of the dry 209 acres 55 cents were cultivated and the rest was waste. The wet was all waste. The annual collection from the cultivated dry lands is also given for about 15 years, namely, Faslis 1247 and 1256-1269. The average per annum is shown at Rs. 246 and the permanent assessment is shown as Rs. 270. At the time when the register according to Regulation XXXI of 1802 was prepared, the owner of the village was Vedantacharlu, son of the original grantee. At the time of the survey the enjoyer was Kumara Vedantacharlu, son of the last person. At the time of the enfranchisement the enjoyers were two brothers, Aravamu-dalwar and Thirumalacharlu, sons of the last preceding person. Column 20 shows that they were divided. Ex. I is the corresponding inam statement. It gives a pedigree and column 6 says that the agraharam was granted in the Vaisagha Sudha of the year Vijaya which corresponds to May, 1773. Under columns 7, 8 and 9 details are given of the 132 acres 90 cents of minor inams. First, there is the inam granted to the karnam 56 acres 22 cents and then there are the inams to the village purohit 10 acres 23 cents, the Muhathad 10 acres 22 cents, the vettis 15 acres 33 cents and three private inams granted by the agraharamdars to Kurmalla Venkatacharyulu 10 acres 23 cents, Prativati Bhayankaram Appalacharlu 20 acres 45 cents and Kurmalla Varadacharyulu 10 acres 22 cents,. The Inam Deputy Collector recommended the confirmation of the village as an inam adding a quit- rent of Rs. 26-8-2. The agraharam was made subject to a total burden of Rs. 116 made up of the new quit-rent and the old jodi and title deed 1154 was issued. Alongside of this the purohit inam was also enfranchised separately. Ex. V is the inam register. No. 1153 was the title deed for this. The Karnam, Muhathad and Vetti inams being village service inams were not then enfranchised. The other three personal inams were apparently intended to be enfranchised but the inamdars did not come forward to file inam statements and they were accordingly kept under attachment. This appears from Ex. V-b, the inam register, dated the 23 November, 1865. It is not very clear whether specific lands were kept under attachment or merely a paper of attachment was made. It appears as if no inamdars ever turned up asking for enfranchisement of those inams. They seem to have left the village altogether. In the year 1911 the fact that these inams of the extent of 40 acres 90 cents were omitted from enfranchisement was first brought out by the Revenue Officers and after some correspondence in which it appears that the Collector and the Board of Revenue recommended that the agraharamdars may be dealt with leniently the Government passed a final order on the 25 October, 1921, as follows: The Government are not convinced of the necessity for the grant of any concessions to the agraharamdars. They accordingly direct the resumption of the inams and the levy of the full assessment from the Agraharamdars who are admittedly in possession of the lands; and the Board of Revenue was asked to issue the necessary instructions. Thereupon the Board passed a resolution, dated the 31 October, 1921, to the following effect: Resumption ordered. G. O. communicated. Communicated to the Collector of Guntur for necessary action.

(2.) This was followed by the preparation of a new inam register Ex. IV imposing an assessment of Rs. 97-2-0 as additional quit-rent on the whole agraharam land. At this stage it may be observed that it was not suggested for anybody that any persons other than the agraharamdars were in possession of these inams. The inams were apparently mixed up with the rest of the agrahanam. They are not now localisable and are enjoyed either by all the agraharamdars or by some one or other of them though we are not in possession of the details of the enjoyment. The Board's resolution was followed by the imposition of the seri cist of Rs. 107-6- 0. This was followed by a distraint order served on the 2nd plaintiff for Rs. 66-7-0 and the 2nd plaintiff's property was distrained by the Government officials on the 23 May, 1923. Thereupon the present suit was filed on the 23 March, 1925, for a declaration that the proceedings of the Government are ultra vires and illegal and for recovering the amount of Rs. 66-7-0 paid by the 2nd plaintiff. The three plaintiffs filed the present plaint. According to paragraph 3 of the plaint, the 1st plaintiff is entitled to 1/2 share and the 3 plaintiff to 1/8 share, the other shares (1/4) "being held by certain others".

(3.) Paragraph 4 of the plaint alleges that a notice was served on the plaintiffs imposing the seri cist of Rs. 107-6-0 and refers to the distraint proceedings for Rs. 66-7-0 against the 2nd plaintiff only. It alleges that the distraint order was not clear as to the nature of the demand but the plaintiffs infer that it must have related to unlocalised inam land. The old quit-rent of Rs. 116 was paid by them but not the additional demand. In paragraph 6 the plaintiffs say: Plaintiffs believe that they are not now in possession of the said inam and it is not possible to localise the inam. Plaintiffs are co-sharer agra- haramdars and own only fractions of the agraharam land. A large portion of the agraharam was alienated to others who are now in possession of the same. Some other portions are held by certain others and enjoyed by them.