SRI MIRZA RAJA SRI PUSHAVATI ALAKH NARAYANA GAJAPATHIRAJ MAHARAJ MANYA SULTAN BAHADUR GARU, RAJAH OF VIZIANAGRAM Vs. VUGGINA APPALASWAMI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal arises out of a suit filed by the trustee to the Vizianagram Estate under a trust deed, dated the 28 October, 1912, to eject the defendants from the properties mentioned in the plaint and to direct payment of past mesne profits amounting to Rs. 1,500 and future mesne profits at Rs. 750 a month till delivery of possession.

(2.) The case of the plaintiff as set out in the plaint was that the village referred to in the plaint formed part of the mal assets of the Vizianagram Zamindari which is subject to a permanent peishcush, that some time after the Permanent Settlement the revenues, of the suit village were from time to time granted by the former Zamindars of Vizianagram to the ancestors of defendants 1 to 6 as remuneration in lieu of cash allowance for rendering private and personal services to the Zamindar and subject to the payment of kattubadi of Rs. 37-8-0 and without any rights of alienation, that the grant was resumable at the will and pleasure of the grantor or his heirs, that the services for the remuneration whereof the grant was made consisted in the grantee or grantees maintaining a certain number of peons for the purpose of the grantees and their peons escorting the Zamindar in his trips and shooting and hunting expeditions, attending the annual Dasara Durbars at Vizianagram and rendering such other services as may be ordered from time to time which services were all of a purely personal and private nature, that the village was on several occasions resumed and kept under the management of the Zamindar and regranted at the request of the service-holders subject to the same conditions of service as before, that in 1872 the village was last resumed by the late Zamindar and regranted to defendants 1 and 2 and the father of defendants 3 to 6 on the same conditions of service and resumability, etc., as before and they executed a registered agreement, dated the 26 of December, 1873, that defendants 1 to 6 were rendering their services properly whenever called upon to do so till about 3 years before the date of the plaint and since then have neglected to render the service, that the defendants have colluded together and brought about some fraudulent mortgages, sales and other documents mala fide and without consideration, that some or all of the defendants 7 to 108 are in possession of the suit village, that the alienations are not valid and binding upon the plaintiff, that the plaintiff has no desire or necessity to continue the services of the defendants or permit them to enjoy the revenues of the village, that notice was given to the defendants on the 28 of December, 1910, terminating their services and calling upon them to vacate and surrender the suit properties, that the defendants have all combined together and failed to do so, and that the defendants have denied the title of the plaintiff setting up an adverse claim in themselves and have forfeited their tenure by reason of the denial and the alienations.

(3.) Defendants 7 to 69 were impleaded as they belonged to the family of defendants 1 to 6 and were unlawfully in possession of the suit properties and the other defendants were added as they were collusively in possession under defendants 1 to 6.