RAJAH SAHEB MEHARBAN-I-DOSTAN; SRI RAJAH ROW VENKATA KUMARA; MAHIPATHI SURYA RAO BAHADUR GARU; SARDAR RAJAHMUNDRY SARCAR; MAHARAJA OF PITHAPURAM Vs. CHAIRMAN, MUNICIPAL COUNCIL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal by the plaintiff in which though the pecuniary interests directly involved are small, some interesting questions arise for decision. There is a puntha or public pathway (marked S. No. 260) in Surya Rowpetta, a part of the plaintiff's Zamindari. The defendant is the Municipal Council of Cocanada, in whom this puntha is now vested. Up to 1919 it would appear to have vested in the Taluk Board of Cocanada by whom it was transferred to the defendant municipality, in 1919 or 1920. The point for decision is, what are the rights of the plaintiff and the defendant in respect of the palmyra trees growing on this bit of land. Neither the plaint nor the written statement suggests that these trees were planted by the plaintiff or the defendant or the Taluk Board. P.W. 3 says : "I do not know who planted them". Presumably they were spontaneous growths and I deal with the matter on this assumption.

(2.) One contention on behalf of the plaintiff and one on behalf of the defendant may easily be put aside. The plaintiff claimed that the written statement admitted his original title to the land. I agree with the Courts below that this is not a reasonable construction of the allegation in the written statement. On behalf of the defendant, undue stress has been laid on the description of the land as poramboke in the Record-of-Rights and the Settlement Register. Being a public pathway it was rightly classed as poramboke ; but this description or classification throws little light on the question of title and much less on the right to the trees.

(3.) The written statement alleged that this piece of land had been acquired by the Government long ago for public purposes and the Taluk Board had been exercising ownership therein. No attempt has been made to prove any such acquisition. The case must therefore be dealt with on the footing that the Taluk Board and the defendant Council have only such rights as vest in them under the Statute, by reason of the land being used as a public way.