VIPPARLA VEERASWAMI Vs. MANGAMURI SUBBA RAO
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
MANGAMURI SUBBA RAO
Click here to view full judgement.
A.D.V. Reddy, J. -
(1.) These are appeals by the plaintiffs against the judgments and
decrees in O. S. Nos. 38 and 39 of 1959 on the file of the Subordinate
Judge, Ongole, dismissing the suits filed under Section 92 of the
Code of Civil Procedure, for framing schemes.
(2.) In the village of Nagulapadu, hamlet of Addanki, there are two
tanks, one by the name of ' Mangamuri Papayya Kunta ' and the
other by name ' Gangadevi Kunta. About two centuries ago, one
Mr. Travers, the then Collector of Nellore made certain grants for the
upkeep and maintenance of the said tanks. According to the plaintiffs,
who are two of the villagers and have chosen to file the suits for framing
the schemes after obtaining the sanction under Section 92 CPC., for
the ' Mangamuri Papaiah Kunta ', Ac. 54-22 cents comprised in S. No.
2008 in the village of South Addanki was granted by the said Collector
and this was confirmed in Title Deed No. 1932 and for the other tank
viz, ' Gangadevi Kunta', the same Collector had granted Ac. 28-44
cents Ac. 6-42 cents comprised in S. No. 2037 and Ac. 20-45 cents
comprised in S. No. 2066 in the same village as Inam for the maintenance of
the said tank and this was also confirmed in Title Deed No.
1928, that these are granted in favour of one of the ancestors of the
defendants who are common in both the suits, that for the last 20 years
they have neglected the maintenance of the tanks and have been appropriating
the income thereof and hence the suits for the removal of the
present defendants for the acts of malfeasance and misfeasance attributed
to them for making them liable to account for the income and for
framing of a scheme with regard to both the Tanks.
(3.) In both the suits, the defendants contended that their ancestor
one Mangamuri Papaiah himself dug the suit tanks in his own land and
with his own funds, that the lands were not granted to him as inam and
what was granted was only the revenue payable thereon for the upkeep
of the tanks, and that he and his descendants including the defendants
have been maintaining the tanks in good repairs. They further contended
that the suits are not maintainable under the provisions of the
Andhra Pradesh Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari Act of 1956.
After passing of the Andhra Pradesh Charitable and Hindu Religious
Institutions and Endowments Act, 1966, they have amended the written
statements and contended that under the provisions of the said Act
also, the suits are not maintainable.;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.