MATHALA SANYASI NAIDU Vs. ALLU CHINA GAVURU NAIDU
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
MATHALA SANYASI NAIDU
ALLU CHINA GAVURU NAIDU
Click here to view full 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
(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.
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.).
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.