KAJULURI VIRANNA ALIAS BULLI VEERANNA Vs. TILLAPUDI VENKAYYA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an application for the issue of a writ of certiorari to call for the records in S.S. No. 5 of 1934 on the file of the Deputy Collector of Cocanada and in the appeal therefrom, Summary Appeal No. 22 of 1935 on the file of the District Collector of East Godavari and to quash the decisions therein.

(2.) The suit was to recover possession of the lands from defendants 7 to 18 on the ground that they were emoluments attached to the potter service in the village of Velangi and that the plaintiff was entitled to perform that service and has been performing it from 1932. Defendants 7 to 18 denied the truth of the genealogy set up in the plaint and contended that the plaintiff was not entitled either to perform the service or to the possession of the lands in question, and that they have been in possession for a long time. The trial Court found that the relationship set up by the plaintiff was true, that the suit was not barred by limitation or adverse possession, but dismissed the suit chiefly on the ground that the relinquishment by defendants 1 to 4 in favour of the plaintiff was not proved and that the plaintiff had not been appointed in their place. In appeal, that decree was reversed and a decree was given for the plaintiff as sued for.

(3.) The contention of the learned Advocate for the petitioners before this Court is that the Revenue Courts had no jurisdiction to entertain this suit. The only question therefore for decision is whether the Courts below had jurisdiction to entertain the suit. The allegations in the plaint make it clear that the lands, possession of which is sued for, are the emoluments of the potter service in the village concerned and that the plaintiff was suing in his capacity as the person, who was entitled to that office on the death of his father and after relinquishment by his brothers, defendants 1 to 4, and who has been regularly performing the potter service in that village from 2nd December, 1933. Section 13(1) of the Madras Hereditary Village Offices Act (III of 1895) is as follows: Any person may sue before the Collector for any of the village offices specified in Section 3 or for recovery of the emoluments of any such office, on the ground that he is entitled under Sub-section (2) or (3) of Section 10 of the Madras Proprietary Estates Village Service Act, 1894, or under Sub-section (2) or (3) of Section 10 or Sub-section (2) or (3) of Section 11 or Sec. 12 of this Act as the case may be, to hold such office and enjoy such emoluments