SRI RAVU SESHAYYA GARU Vs. RAJAH OF PITTAPPUR, SRI RAJA RAVU VENKATA KUMARA MAHIPATI SURYA RAO BAHADUR VARU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The defendant is the appellant. The suit was brought by his landlord (the Rajah of Pittapuram) for recovering the plaint land which had been enjoyed by the defendent as pasture land from 1877. The plaintiff did not state in his plaint whether the land was (a) Private home-farm land of the Zamindar, or (b) old waste being ryoti land, or (c) old waste which was not ryoti land, or (d) other non- ryoti land. Nor did he say whether the defendant was a ryot. He contended himself with saying that the land was pas-ture land and that the defendant obtained the land every year on cowle for that year for the purpose of grazing cattle.

(2.) The defendant contended that the land was ryoti land that the defendant has been enjoying the land " as it suited him " and not merely as pasture land and that the defendant had therefore occupancy right in the land. The defendant did not expressly state that he was a " ryot" within the definition of the term in the Estates Land Act.

(3.) On the above pleas of the defendant, two main issues were framed by the District Munsif: 1. Is the suit land not a ryoti land and is plaintiff entitled to eject the defendant? 2. Has this Court (the Civil Court) jurisdiction to try the suit?