GUNTUPALLI RAMAKRISHNAYYA Vs. GUNTUPALLI PITCHAYYA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiff in this suit seeks to recover certain land which originally formed a portion of a karnam service inam which has since been enfranchised. The plaintiff became karnam in 1908 and this portion of the inam was enfranchised in 1909 in favour of the defendant who admittedly was not an office-holder. The plaintiff continued in office for some years but was then removed and now brings this suit in 1920 to recover the land. He bases his claim on the following facts: He contends that, when the land was enfranchised in 1909, it was enfranchised by Government not for the benefit of the person in whose name the title-deed stands but for the benefit of the office-holder. He being the office-holder at that time must be deemed to have had the land enfranchised for his benefit and it then became his private property. The fact that he is now out of office, therefore, does not affect his right to recover the land. In this argument I think there are two fallacies. In the first place, it necessitates a presumption that, when Government enfranchised this land in favour of the defendant who was not an office-holder, they must be taken to have intended to enfranchise it in favour of the office-holder, although in terms they enfranchised it in favour of a stranger. It is impossible to draw any such presumption when we have the clear terms of the title-deed against it. In the second place, it is based on the assumption that the enfranchisement does not amount to a re-grant; but in the case in Venkata Jagannadha V/s. Veerabhadrayya (1921) ILR 44 M 643 : 41 MLJ 1 (PC), a decision of the Privy Council, the case of a karnam service inam was specifically distinguished from that of a poligar's inam, and it appears to me that it was held that in a case of a service inam the enfranchisement does amount to a re-grant. This view has been held by a Bench of this Court in S. A. Nos. 287 and 288 of 1921, to which my learned brother was a party, and again by a single Judge, Wallace, J., in Gouri Kantam V/s. Ramamurthi and by Devadoss, J., in S. A. No. 322 of 1922. A contrary view was taken by a Bench of this Court in Lakshminarasimham V/s. Venkataranayamma (1921) 30 MLT 334 , but the balance of opinion is against that view and I wish to express my concurrence with the majority. If, therefore, the enfranchisement amounts to a re- grant, it cannot be denied that Government can do what they like with the land when they are granting it and, therefore, the grant to the stranger defendant is perfectly justifiable and cannot be impeached by the plaintiff.

(2.) In this view the appeal fails and is dismissed with costs. Odgers, J.

(3.) I agree. I adhere to the view I expressed in my referring judgment in S. A. Nos. 287 and 288 of 1921 as to the effect of the Privy Council decision in Venkata Jagannadha V/s. Veerabhadrayya (1921) ILR 44 M 643 : 41 MLJ 1 (PC) and also to the view that I expressed there that the decision in Lakshminarasimham v. Venkataratnayamma (1921) 30 MLT 334 cannot he supported.