NIDADAVOLE RAMALINGAM Vs. NIDADAVOLE VEERABHADRUDU (DECEASED)

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Second Appeal is by the Plaintiff who sued for possession of certain lands which are admittedly Village Service Inam (for Blackmith's service) in the Pittapur Estate. The plaintiff admits that neither he nor his father was the holder of the office or was doing the service and that the first defendant and after him defendants 2 and 3 are the holders of the office and have been discharging the duties; but, he claimed that his father and after his death himself have been in possession of those lands for a long time and that he has acquired a title thereto by adverse possession as against the office holders, though such possession might not affect the right of the Government to resume the lands.

(2.) In view of the omission of the defendants in the written statement to deny the plaint allegations as to the circumstances under which the plaintiff's father came into possession of the suit lands, we may take it that as alleged in the plaint the plaintiff's father must have been put into possession of these lands at a family partition between himself and his brother the first defendant. Whether possession derived under such circumstances should be regarded as permissive or as adverse is not altogether beyond doubt.

(3.) It was the prevalent idea for some time, notwithstanding all the provisions of the Regulations or the statute that these service inams were in essence family property and if the office holder allows some other members of his family to remain in possession, the Court need not necessarily regard such possession as adverse to the office holder. However the Court of first instance, in this case, held the possession to be adverse and the argument before me has proceeded on that footing. The evidence in the case establishes that from about 1891, the plaintiff's branch has been in possession of these properties. This date is important, because it is undoubtedly within 12 years of the passing of the Proprietary Estates Village Service Act II of 1894.