BESTA THAVATI NAIDU Vs. KARRI KARRIVADU
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
BESTA THAVATI NAIDU
Click here to view full 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.;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.