GUTTULA MASENU Vs. MADIMPALLI BHAVARAJU GARU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellants were defendants in O.S. No. 224. of 1943 and O.S. No. 99 of 1944, the plaintiffs being persons who claimed to have occupancy rights in the lands in dispute. The case of the appellants was that the plaintiffs were really landholders and that since the defendants were in possession at the time when the Madras Estates Land Act was amended they acquired occupancy rights.

(2.) There can be no doubt that the plaintiffs were in possession of the lands for a very long time, long prior to 1908, when the original Act came into force. On the 11 November, 1887, two documents came into existence, one Ex. P-19, purporting to be a grant by the proprietors of a certain village, and the other, Ex. P-1, an ordinary lease granting leasehold rights to grantees from the expiration of that agreement, the 1 of April, 1908. The lower Courts have found that the defendants have not acquired occupancy rights, and that the plaintiffs were in possession of the lands in dispute even prior to the defendants occupation. The very many documents filed in the case and the evidence of persons who had long knowledge of these lands, including P.W. 1 and P.W. 3, the latter being the karnam of the village from 1892 to 1909, show that the plaintiffs were in possession of about 15 acres of cultivable lands even prior to 1908. Mr. Bhimasankaram contends on behalf of the appellant that it does not suffice for the plaintiffs to show that they had been in possession before the defendants were, but they had to prove that they were in possession as ryots. That is no doubt true ; but Exs. P-1 and P-19, together with the other documentary evidence in the case, leads one to that conclusion, in the absence of any evidence of any other person having been in possession as a ryot.

(3.) It has been argued that the learned Subordinate Judge should have had regard to kadapas earlier than the suit kadapas and seen that the proper rent was a cash rent very much smaller than that now claimed. As, however, the learned Subordinate Judge found that the suit kadapas were not brought about by fraud or misrepresentation, but were binding on the defendants, there can be no question of the appellants having to pay any rent in cash. What exactly they have to pay as rent has been left to be ascertained by separate proceedings.