KADAGALLA VENKANNA Vs. INDUKURI LAKSHMIPATHI RAJU AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE plaintiff obtained a money decree against certain agraharamdars. On the 7th January, 1941, at a Court sale held in execution of the decree he purchased 13.65 acres of land owned.by the judgment -debtors under an inam granted in 1755. The first defendant was in possession of the land as the tenant and the Court could only give the plaintiff symbolical possession. This was given on the 30th April, 1942. The plaintiff filed the suit out of which the appeal arises on the 2nd October, 1943, to recover possession from the first defendant and defendants 2 to 4 who are his sub -tenants. The plaintiff alleged that he had obtained physical possession of the land from the first defendant and thereafter had granted to him a tenancy for one year from the beginning of May, 1942, on the condition that the first defendant vacated at the end of the year. The first defendant was to pay by way of rent three -fourths of the produce of the two crops raised on the land. He asked for a declaration of his title to the land, for the ejectment of the defendants, for the payment of Rs. 2,476 as arrears of rent for the year 1942 -43, for mesne profits at the same rate and for the payment of Rs. 305 as damages for waste. The Subordinate Judge granted the plaintiff the declaration of title and a decree for possession; but he dismissed the further claims of the plaintiff. He disbelieved entirely the story of the oral lease. The first defendant died after the trial and his son has filed the appeal as his legal representative. He maintains that the Subordinate Judge erred in granting a decree for possession. The plaintiff has filed a memorandum of cross -objections which has been limited to the finding of the Subordinate Judge that the first defendant was not in arrears of rent and to the order with regard to costs.

(2.) IT is common ground that unless the case falls within the Madras Estates Land (Amendment) Act, 1945, the decree for possession must stand. That Act inserted in Section 3 (a) (d) the following explanation:

(3.) THE register is headed " register of inams in the village of Ghintalapalli Agra -haram in the taluk of Pentapad in the district of Kistna." The entry in column 8 (" description of inam ") is as follows : " Agraharam granted for the personal benefit of the holder." The agraharam granted here admittedly refers to the 475.78 acres. The word agraharam does not necessarily mean the whole of a village. According to Wilson's Glossary it means a village, or a part of one, occupied by Brahmans and held either rent free under special grants, or at a reduced rate of assessment.