SECRETARY OF STATE Vs. SREE RAJAH VENKATA KUMARA MAHIPATHI SURYA RAOBAHADUR GARU, MAHARAJAH OF PITHAPUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These appeals arise out of a suit brought in 1925 by the Maharajah of Pithapuram with the Secretary of State as the principal defendant, for a declaration of his title to a lanka measuring about 140 acres, in the river Vainatiam, a branch of the Godavari. This lanka adjoins the right or western bank of the river, and extends from the Gannavaram aqueduct in the north to the Government village of Mondepulanka in the south. To the west of the river throughout this length lies the zamindary village of Lankala Gannavaram belonging to the plaintiff along with the bank being lands bearing Section Nos. 5 (Uta Badawa Lanka), 2 (Gaddavani Lanka Thoorpulanka Polemere dori Tuni) and 1 (Jonnalanka). Plaintiff laid claim to this lanka on two grounds (i) because the Vainetyam at this point was neither tidal nor navigable, and he therefore was the owner of its bed, and (ii) because part of it was a re-formation of part of an old lanka of his called Turpulanka which had existed at this site and had been washed away by floods in 1849 and the rest was an accretion to this re-formed land; Government, on the other hand, denied plaintiff's right to the bed of the river, denied any reformation of any lanka belonging to plaintiff and claimed that the lanka in suit was not an accretion to any part of the village of Lanka Gannavaram, but was an independent formation first appearing in the river as an island. Even if, in the alternative, the lanka be found to be a lateral accretion and not an island it was contended that it was an accretion not to plaintiff's land but to a strip of land along the river bank acquired by Government under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act in, 1898.

(2.) The learned Subordinate Judge of Amalapuram found, (i) that the river at this point was both tidal and navigable, so that plaintiff could lay no claim to the ownership of its bed, (ii) that, the lanka was not an island but a lateral accretion to the land on the river bank, (iii) that though it was probable that some part of the lanka was a re-formation of land once belonging to plaintiff, plaintiff had not been able to adduce sufficient proof of identity of site, and that, even if he had afforded such proof, he must be deemed to have abandoned his claim to the submerged land and therefore could not rely upon any such identification as affording him any title; and (iv) that the strip of land acquired by Government in 1898 did not extend throughout the whole length of the bank now in question, but only as far south as the junction between S. No. 5 and S. No. 2.

(3.) On these findings, the learned Judge held that the title to the northern portion of this lanka lay with Government as being an accretion to the land acquired by Government and to the southern portion with the plaintiff as an accretion to his land in Lankala Gannavaram. With this decision neither party was satisfied, and each has preferred an appeal (475 by Government and 584 by plaintiffs), claiming title to the whole subject-matter of the suit. It may be stated at the outset that the plaintiff no longer contests the first of the learned Subordinate Judge's findings that the river is both tidal and navigable; and in spite of a reference in the written statement to 1859 as the date of the first emergence of the island which according to Government has since grown into this lanka, it was common ground at the arguments that the suit lanka first made its appearance in approximately the same shape and area as were observed during the pendency of the suit, in the year 1917-18.