BADAM SURYANARAYANA Vs. YALLA BULLAYYA ALIAS VENKATACHELAM (DEAD)

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Plaintiffs 1, 2 and 4 have preferred this second appeal which arises out of a suit brought for a declaration that the entry in the record-of-rights that defendants 1 and 2 have permanent occupancy rights in the suit lands is not correct. Plaintiffs suit was dismissed by both the Lower Courts on the ground of limitation and on the merits. The main contention of the plaintiffs was that the suit land, which formed part of the Pittapur Zemindari, was granted as a Kattubadi Inam prior to the Permanent Settlement and that the plaintiffs father became the purchaser of this land in 1892 from the original inamdars. The contention of defendants 1 and 2 is to the effect.

(2.) that the suit is barred by limitation, that the plaintiffs should have filed this suit in the District Munsif's Court but have.con-trived to file it in the Court of the Subordinate Judge by overvaluing their claim for purposes of jurisdiction and that the suit land is a Dharmilla inam, that is, a post-settlement inam granted by the Zamindar of Pittapur, and that they have permanent occupancy rights in the same.

(3.) The record-of-rights was finally published in May, 1913. This fact is not in dispute. Under Art. 120 of the Limitation Act, the plaintiffs should have filed this suit for a declaration within six years from the date of such publication. Their plaint was actually presented in the Subordinate Judge's Court, Cocanada, on the 7 of July 1919, on which date that Court reopened after the summer vacation. The suit was valued for purposes of jurisdiction at Rs. 4,000. This valuation is attacked on the other side as an over-valuation arbitrarily made by the plaintiffs in order to get over the bar of limitation with which they would be successfully confronted in case the suit was laid in the District Munsif's Court, Cocanada, which re-opened on the 16 June 1919 after the summer recess.