TAKKOLU KRISHNA REDDY Vs. PULAPATHUR VENKATA SUBBIAH ALIAS LAZAR
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
Takkolu Krishna Reddy
Pulapathur Venkata Subbiah Alias Lazar
Click here to view full judgement.
MR.K.SUBBA RAO,C.J. -
(1.) The main question in this second appeal is whether section 21 of the Madras Act III of 1895 is a bar to the maintainability of the suit.
(2.) The facts either found or admitted may be briefly stated. The plaintiff is one of the hereditary nirugantis under the Patha Cuddapah tank situated in the Patha Cuddapah village and is the owner of the share in the niruganti mirasi. A niruganti attends to the watering of the various lands under the ayacut and receives remuneration from the ryots for doing the service. When the plaintiff's father died, he was a minor. In the year 1912, when the plaintiff was a minor, his mother executed a sale-deed in respect of the plaintiff's properties in favour of the defendant's father to discharge the debts due to him. Under that sale-deed, the plaintiff's the share in the aforesaid niruganti right was also conveyed. Notwithstanding the sale, the plaintiff has been performing the service either directly or through his agents. In 1946, the defendant unlawfully obstructed the plaintiff from discharging his duty as a niruganti. The plaintiff filed O.S. No. 261 of 1946 on the file of the Court of the District Munsif, Cuddapah, for restraining the defendant by a permanent injunction from interfering with the performance of the service and from receiving the remuneration in respect of this service.
(3.) The defendant, in his written statement, admitted that the niruganti service pertains to a village office but claims to have acquired title to it by adverse possession. He further averred that the jurisdiction of the Civil Court was ousted by the provisions of Madras Act III of 1895. The learned District Munsif held that the office is not one governed by section 4 of Madras Act III of 1895. Even if the Act applied, he expressed the view that the suit was cognisable by a Civil Court. But he found on the evidence that the defendant and his father were getting the service performed through deputies ever since 1912, and that, therefore, the plaintiff's right to the office was extinguished by adverse possession. On those findings, he dismissed the suit.;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.