PUSARLA PEDA BRAHAMAJ Vs. KRISHNAMA CHARIAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) It is argued that the orders of the Special Deputy Collector were ultra vires and outside the scope of his authority under Act I of 1876, because (1) plaintiffs claimed by prescription and that is not a case of alienation: (2) they and the Zemindar, to whom the land originally belonged, did not concur in applying for separate registration.

(2.) As regards (1) we have been shown no reason for excluding acquisitions by prescription from the description " Sale or otherwise."

(3.) As regards (2) Fischer v. Secretary of State for India in Council 19 M. 292 at p. 303 shows that notwithstanding the absence of both parties concurrence in the application, the aggrieved party s remedy is by a suit under Section 6 of the Act.