CHINTALAPUDI NEELACHALAM ADU Vs. CHINTALAPUDI KAMARAZU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The District Judge has given no finding upon the 1 issue and we must ask him to return a finding thereon. The determination of this issue also necessarily has an important bearing upon the question of adverse possession--M. Seshaya v. Gauramma 4 M.H.C.R. 336.

(2.) Within the meaning of the Proviso to Section 21 of Act III of 1895 under which section this suit is brought, the plaintiff will be entitled to a decree if the lands were never granted as the emoluments of the office or if at the date when Act II of 1894 was extended to the office of Karnam in the estate in question, the emoluments did not appertain to the office by reason of the plaintiff having acquired (under Art. 144 of the 2nd schedule and Section 28 of the Limitation Act) title to the lands by adverse pos-session prior to such date up to which date suits in respect of the office of Karnam and the emoluments thereof were cognizable by Civil Courts and governed by the ordinary law of limitation by reason of the last section of Regulation VI of 1831 having excepted from it the office of Karnam in a permanently settled district. In our opinion the ruling of the Privy Council in Gnanasambanda Pandara Sannadhi V/s. Velu Pandaram I.L.R. 23 M. 271 is applicable as much to lands alienated by the holder for the time being of the hereditary office of Karnam as to lands alienated by the holder of the here-ditary office of trustee and limitation runs from such date not only against the alienor but also against his immediate and other successors.

(3.) If the finding on the 1 issue is against the plaintiff, we also request the District Judge to submit a fresh finding upon the 2nd issue with reference to the foregoing observations.