ADDAGANTI CHINNA VENKATA SUBBA ROW MINOR, BY MOTHER AND NEXT FRIEND NARASAMMA Vs. YEMMANUR VENKATRAMAYYA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal from the judgment of the District Judge of Cuddapah in a suit brought by the plaintiffs, who were the registered holders of the Karnam s office in this particular Inam Village, to recover from the Shrotriemdars certain lands which, they contend, were emoluments of the Karnam s office. The District Judge has found, and his finding has not been and could not be seriously disputed, that these lands were Karnam s Inam and that they were excluded from the Shrotriem lands when the Shrotriem Inam was confirmed by the Inam Commission. Prima facie, the title to these lands was undoubtedly before the enfranchise merit in the holders of the Karnam s office for the time being. The Karnam s office was a hereditary office, and these lands were annexed to the office for its emoluments and the holders of the office for the time being were entitled to them. The District Judge has, however, found in this casa that the plaintiffs suit is barred by limitation on the ground that these lands have, for a very long time, been in possession of the Shrotriemdars. On the other side, reliance is placed upon the fact that the Shrotriemdars have all along been making payments of Rs. 25 annually to the Karnam in office, and the Shrotriemdars have not proved by affirmative evidence that they were trespassers and in possession as such. Having regard to the fact that this was a Karnam s Inam and to the annual payments to the Karnam for the time being and to the fact that they might very well have got into possession by some arrangement as to management owing to the incapacity of the Karnam, we think that the District Judge, has placed the onus on the wrong side, and that the onus is strongly upon the Shrotriemdars to show that their possession was not permissive but adverse and they failed to discharge that onus., It is not necessary to rely on the oral evidence on either side which, in a case like this, is often exceedingly inconclusive. There is a document, Exhibit PI, which throws considerable light upon this case. It is an order by the Settlement Officer for the enfranchisement of the Karnam s Inam, and it affords evidence of certain transactions of which other evidence is not forthcoming. It is found by the Settlement Officer that, for 21 years from 1877 to 1898, Narasinga Row was the Karnam, that, under Regulation VI of 1831, he sued the Shrotriemdars for possession of these very lands and that he obtained a consent judgment in a summary suit in a Revenue Court. It is said that this was never executed because all the Shrotriemdars were not parties, but the fact that many of them consented to the restoration of the lands goes far to support the case for the plaintiffs that their occupation was permissive. We have been referred to Exhibits K and L, but they do not help us. Exhibit K is simply a takid from the Tahsildar to the Shrotriemdars telling them to see that the Karnam, who had acted during the suspension of the holder of the office, should be paid by the principal Karnam for his work out of the Inam Taram. Similarly Exhibit L is a receipt given by the acting Karnam to the Karnam for such a payment. It is said on the other side that it is unlikely, if there had really been a lease and if the possession had been permissive, the Shrotriemdars would have been allowed to continue in possession for such a small payment as Rs. 25 annually. There is no doubt some force in this contention,, but the facts of the case are very obscure, and, as we have said, we do not think that this is sufficient to rebut the inference which arises from some of the outstanding facts that the detendants possession was permissive.

(2.) The other question is that of misjoinder or non joinder. It is said that this suit ought to have been brought by the mother of the plaintiffs, who was the daughter of Narasinga Bow, the last Karnam. That is a complete misconception. The office under the Madras Regulation II of 1894 devolves upon the next male heirs. Therefore this woman, the plaintiffs mother, never succeeded to the office At the time of the enfranchisement, the plaintiffs were minors, but the office had been registered in their names, omitting their elder brother, who was entitled to some other Karnam s office and was held not capable of holding two Karnam s offices at the same time. The plaintiffs were minors and the effect of the registry was only to keep alive their claims to the office as soon as either of them became capable of filling it. In these on concomitances the Karnam s Inam was enfranchised, but it was in their favour. As we have said, up to the time of enfranchisement, the lands were annexed to the Karnam s office and enjoyed by the holder of the office for the time being, who was the only person who had any right to them. In a Full Bench case in Pingala Lakshmipati v. bommireddipalli Chalamayya 30 M. 434; 17 M. L, J. 101 (F. B.); 2 M. L. T. 101. overruling, several other oases, and following the judgment of Bhashyam Aiyangar, J., in Gunnaryan v. Kamakchi Ayyar 26 M. 339, it was held that "the enfranchisement diaannexes the Inam from the office, converts it into ordinary property and releases the reversionary rights of the Crown in the Inam, but does not confer on the persons named in the title deed any right in derogation of those possessed by other persons in the Inam at the time of the enfranchisement." Applying that to this case, the result is that the land which had been an endowment of a hereditary office came to be held by the family which was entitled to the office. The registered holders of the Inam were plaintiffs and there can he no doubt that they would have been entitled to sue to recover the Inam before the enfranchisement. We do not think that they ceased by virtue of the enfranchisement to represent the Inam for the purpose of recovering it. As we hold that the possession was permissive on the date of the suit, there will be no question of limitation. As regards the question of mesne profits, Mr. Venkatarama Aiyar has pointed out that, on the date of the enfranchisement, the plaintiffs elder brother was a major and would have been entitled to sue to recover the Inam and also to recover mesne profits, and that so far as mesne profits are concerned, time should be considered to have run as against him and against the plaintiffs also, and, therefore, their claim for mesne profits must be considered to be barred except as to three years before the suit. We accordingly give judgment for possession with mesne profits for three years before suit and subsequent mesne profits until delivery of possession.

(3.) As there is no finding on the 5th issue we have decided to call for a finding on that issue on the evidence on record, and also for a finding as to the rate of mesne profits as to which fresh evidence may be taken. Findings should be submitted in two months. Seven days are allowed for objections.