BESTA THAVATI NAIDU Vs. KARRI KARRIVADU
LAWS(APH)-1963-11-32
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
Decided on November 07,1963

BESTA THAVATI NAIDU Appellant
VERSUS
KARRI KARRIVADU Respondents

JUDGEMENT

- (1.) This Second Appeal arises out of a suit for ejectment; for possession of the suit land and for recovery of arrears of rent. The case of the plaintiffs is that, they purchased the suit land, which is of an extent of Ac. 3-0, on the 16th December, 1950, that the suit land is a pre-settlement minor inam and that the defendants became their tenants after the sale in their favour. The first defendant denied knowledge of the sale deed in favour of the plaintiffs. According to him, he and his father were cultivating the suit land with right of occupancy. He also denied the truth and validity of the relinquishment deed said to have been executed by the second defendant in favour of the plaintiff. The suit was once dismissed but however, on appeal, it was remanded for a fresh disposal with a direction that the parties should be given an opportunity to adduce fresh evidence. After remand, the suit was again dismissed.
(2.) The questions which were agitated before the trial Court were : (1) Whether the suit village is an ' estate ' within the meaning of the Madras Estates Land Act ? and (2) Whether the relinquishment deed Exhibit A-4 executed by the second defendant in favour of the plaintiffs is true and binding upon the first defendant ? On the first of the questions, the trial Court held that the village of Seetharamapuram Agraharam, in which the suit lands are situated, is an estate with reference to section 3 (2) (d) of the Madras Estates Land Act. On appeal, the learned Subordinate Judge, in concurrence with the conclusions of the learned District Munsif at the trial, held that the suit village is an estate within the meaning of the Madras Estates Land Act.
(3.) On the second of the questions the trial Court held that Exhibit A-4, the relinquishment deed, dated the 3rd June, 1951, executed by the second defendant in favour of plaintiffs 1 and 2, did not confer any rights on the plaintiffs and that it had not the effect of depriving the first defendant of his occupancy rights. This conclusion was based upon the finding reached by the trial Court that neither the second defendant's father nor the second defendant himself was a tenant directly under the plaintiffs or their predecessors-in-interest and that they had no rights in the suit land which they could validly relinquish under Exhibit A-4.;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.