(1.) The facts of this second appeal may be briefly, slated. One Varanasi Ramayya owned an inam measuring 2 acres 30 cents, in the suit village of Ramasingavaram. He sold half of it to P.W. No. 3 under Ex. A (14 December 1895). P.W. No. 3 sold half of his moiety (i.e., one-fourth) under Ex. C-1 to K. Lingamaraju who then sold it to plaintiff tinder Ex. B.P.W. No. 3 sold the other half of his moeity also to plaintiff under Ex. C. (21 April 1914). Thus whatever inam Ramayya had, passed to plaintiff The suit is for recovery pf that inam.
(2.) There is some doubt and confusion as to the identity of the inam. As will appear later on, the point is, in my opinion, not material. But I may indicate the nature of the doubt according to the Munsifs findings. The Subordinate Judge has given no finding. According to the District Munsif it appears that the Survey number of the inam according to the old Survey was No. 114. In the re-Settlement of the village in 1899 or 1901), Survey No. 114 is shown as 236 A. The rest of Survey No. 236 belongs to Government. The Munsif also says "At the time of the sub-division Survey field No. 236A appears to have been shown as Survey held No. 236A-544". Some of the Survey records show interpolations and corrections and show that Survey 236-A544 is south of Survey No. 104: but it is possible that the corrections represent the proper state of things, though it is not clear. The plaintiff's suit is for recovery of the land south of Survey No. 104.
(3.) The defendants plead that the land, south of Survey No. 101, is not 236A-544 but 236G and it belongs to Government. They plead no title of their own not even a right to possession under the authority of the true owner. In the written statement, they no doubt pleaded that Buddala people Cultivated it and sold it to 10 defendant but, nosale-deed is produced. In fact it was admitted before me that such part of the suit land, as was under the occupation of the defendants, was under their Sivajima cultivation, i.e., they are practically trespassers and have no right of any kind. When a person, who has no patta and is, therefore, not a raiyat, trespasses on a land belonging to Government, and cultivates it, the Government sometime imposes an assessment (some what heavier than the usual settlement assessment). This is called Sivajima assessment. It amounts to a condoning of the act of trespass but does not amount to a recognition of any, right nor any undertaking on the part of the Government, to permit the Occupation for the future, though, as a matter of fact, the occupation may go on for years, and the trespass for each year being cosndoned; for that year by the recovery of the assessment. (S.C. 15 paras. 23, 24, 25). It is clear that defendants rights, even as such trespassers terminated with 1918 (see Ex. G).