MATHALA SANYASI NAIDU Vs. ALLU CHINA GAVURU NAIDU
LAWS(APH)-1955-12-8
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
Decided on December 07,1955

MATHALA SANYASI NAIDU Appellant
VERSUS
ALLU CHINA GAVURU NAIDU Respondents


Referred Judgements :-

VISWANATHAM BROTHERS V. SUBBAYYA [REFERRED TO]
SOMASUNDARAM V. STATE OF MADRAS [REFERRED TO]
MANTRAVADI BHAVANARAYANA VS. MERUGU VENKATADU [REFERRED TO]
KAKARLAPUDI JANIKIRAMARAJU VS. GEDALA APPALASWAMI [REFERRED TO]



Cited Judgements :-

DR. BAL SAROOP DAULAT RAM VS. LT. COL. LAKHBIR SINGH KIRPAL SINGH AND ANR. [LAWS(P&H)-1964-1-30] [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

Bhimasankaram, J. - (1.)This is an appeal against the judgment of our learned brother, Umamaheswaram, J. allowing the appeal of the defendants 3 to 5 against the decree and judgment of the Subordinate Judge of Visakhapatnam in O.S. No. 27 of 1947. That was a suit instituted by the appellant for possession of a number of properties from the defendants. The present dispute however is confined to item 21 of the plaint A schedule. This item is described in that schedule as " a quitrent inam called ' Manthavari Manyam ' of Mamidipalli ". The plaint states that the defendants 3 to 5 are in unlawful possession of this item and that the plaintiff is entitled to recover it from them as an item of property belonging to one Chinnam Naidu, who bequeathed the property to him under a will. In their written statement, the defendants pleaded that they have been in possession of this item as tenants under a lease deed dated 3rd October, 1942 and claimed rights of permanent occupancy therein on the ground that it formed part of Mamidipalli Agraharam a whole inam village constituting an estate under the Madras Estates Land Act.
(2.)The controversy between the parties in respect of this item is embodied in two Issues-issues 9 and 10 framed by the trial Court which run thus :
"9. Whether items 21 (and several others with which we are not now concerned) are estates within the meaning of Madras Estates Land Act and whether defendants 3 to 5 (and some others in relation to some other items) acquired statutory occupancy rights therein ? 10. Whether this Court has no jurisdiction to entertain this suit in respect of possession and profits of the land ? "

(3.)The learned Subordinate Judge held that as two separate title deeds were granted at the time of the inam settlement-one confirming the main agraharam and the other confirming the inam of " Manthavari Manyam" , the latter cannot be treated as being part of an estate because it could not be said that the original grant was confirmed as such within the meaning of section 3 (2) (d) of the Madras Estates Land Act. In taking that view, he followed some decisions of the Madras High Court, all of them of single Judges. The first of them is reported in Viswanatham Brothers v. Subbayya, (1945) 1 M.L.J. 443.. Kuppuswami Ayyar, J. held in that case that where a minor inam was confirmed by the Inam Commissioner separately from the rest of an agraharam in a different title deed, it could not be said that when it was so recognised or confirmed by the British Government it was part of the agraharam grant and that the minor inam could not be deemed to be part of an estate within the meaning of the Madras Estates Land Act. Happel, J., in Achyuta Ramayya v. Akkayya, (1946) 2 M.L.J. (Short Notes) 19. followed the above decision and held that where there was a subsequent grant out of a larger grant and both were separately confirmed at the time of the inam settlement, the subsequent grant could not be said to be a portion of an estate. These two decisions were followed by three other single Judges in Mangamma v. Appadu,(1948) 1 M.L.J. 247. Chantayya v. Lakshmapathi, 61 L.W. (Short Notes) 91. and Ramaswami v.Jagannathaswami, (1950) I M.L.J. 18. These decisions must however be deemed to have been over-ruled by the decision of the Full Bench of the Madras High Court in Bhavanarayana v. Venkatadu., (1953) 2 M.L.J. 748 : I.L.R. (1954) Mad. 116 (F;B.).
;


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