SREE RAJA MANYAM MAHALAKSHMAMMA GARU Vs. MUCHIKA APPALARAJU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a petition to the Government under Rule XVI of the Godavery Agency Rules, which has been preferred to the High Court for disposal. The petition prays to set aside the order of the: Agency Munsif of Polavara a dated 4-10-1916 passed in Execution Petition No. 93 of 1910 on his file.

(2.) The appellant was the decree-holder on O.S. No. 1 of 1897 on the file of the Government Agent s Court, the decree of the High Court in Appeal in that suit being dated January 1902.

(3.) As regards execution of decrees of the Agency Courts, the relevant rules are as follows :-- Rule 10(1) " With the exception of the Court of the Government Agent, who shall be at liberty, in the execution of decrees, to employ an Assistant or Munsif; all decrees of other Courts within his jurisdiction shall be carried into effect by the Court by which the suit may have been decided. " "If the person against whom, or the property against which, it is sought to execute any decree resides, or is situated within the jurisdiction of a Court of the same Agency other than the Court issuing the decree, such decree shall be executed in the manner provided in Rule 14, Clause (2), R " (that is, by forwarding the process in execution to the Court of the Divisional Assistant within whose jurisdiction the person or property resides or lies who shall ordinarily cause the same to be executed). Clause (2) : decrees shall be executed by an order addressed to the proper officer of the Court; ***." In the present case, the Government Agent seems to have employed the Polavaram Agency Munsif to execute the Agency Court s decree of 1902. That decree awarded to the plaintiff possession of the forest lands of Singanapalli. To give such possession in execution, the boundary lines between the Singanapalli forest and Chengondapalli forest had to be demarcated. On the 18th July, 1904 the Agency Munsif determined by description on paper the boundary lines as follows: (a) East by a line drawn from Maredukoyya Dimma to the summit of Racha Kodutula Konda and (b) thence midway between the plateau on the top of the said hill and of Darakonda to the centre of Yerrakonda (c) summit shall rest in Singanapatti. Then in 1910, the plaintiff applied by E.P. 93 of 1910 for the cutting of the boundary line as above fixed in the order of July 1904. The Munsif appointed a Commissioner to cut the boundary line and he cut the boundary line according to the best of his ability and according to the three directions (a), (b) and (c) above given in the Munsif s order. While the Commissioner was thus cutting the boundary line, the defendant presented C.M.P. No. 6 of 1915 against the Commissioner s proceedings to the Agency Munsif, his principal objections to the Commissioner s doings being that Yerrakonda and Darakonda referred to in direction (b) in the Order of 1904 were not the hills which the Commissioner thought to be of those respective names but that they were two other hills and that the Commissioner should be directed to draw the boundary line between the tops of the two correct hills and not of the wrong hills. The Munsif practically accepted the defendant s (judgment-debtor s) contention and passed an order accordingly. It is against that order, that the present appeal in the usual form of a petition to the Government under Rule 16 has been filed.