Case: Aluru Kondayya And Ors Vs. Singaraju Rama Rao And Ors

2. Suit No. 42 of 1942 was filed by certain tenants of lands in the Village Challayapalem, District Nellore, for a declaration that they hold occupancy rights in lands in their occupation and for an injunction restraining the shrotriemdars of the village from interfering with their possession. The tenants claimed that they and their ancestors were in possession and enjoyment of the lands for many years and had been paying rent to the shrotriemdars, and were dealing with the lands as owners, that all transactions in the Challayapalem shrotriem were being on the footing that the village was an estate under the Madras Estates Land Act, 1908, and that in any event the tenant held permanent rights of occupancy in the lands acquired in virtue of the provisions of the Madras Estates Land (Amendment) Act, 1936. This suit was later numbered 37 of 1947.      3. The shrotriemdars filed suit No. 2 of 1946 against fifteen named defendants for a declaration that the tenants in occupation of the lands in the village did not hold permanent occupancy rights. Later, permission under O. 1, R. 8, Code of Civil Procedure to sue the named defendants as representing all the tenants in the lands of the shrotriem grant was obtained. In this suit the shrotriemdars did not claim any relief for possession: they merely sought to reserve liberty to institute separate proceedings in that behalf and claimed that they were entitled in enforcement of notices served upon ten out of the named defendants to call upon them to deliver possession of lands occupied by them.      4. There was one more suit No. 93 of 1947, which raised a dispute as to the right of occupancy in a small area of land admeasuring 1.90 acres. The plaintiff in the suit claimed that he had acquired the right of occupancy by purchase from the original tenant of the land. The fourth defendant in the suit who was the principal contesting party claimed that he was a grantee of occupancy rights from the shrotriemdar.      5. The three suits were tried together. The tenants claimed in the principal suit No. 2 of 1946 occupancy rights in the lands held by them, on three grounds:(1) that the tenants of agricultural lands were, by immemorial custom of the locality in the Nellore District, occupancy tenants;      (2) that the tenants had acquired by prescription or by the doctrine of lost grant the rights of permanent occupancy and      (3) that the grant was of an estate within the meaning of S. 3(2)(d) of the Madras Estates Land Act, 1908, and the tenants of the lands in the estate were by virtue of S. 6 of the Act permanent occupancy tenantsThe trial Court relying upon the statement in Boswells Manual of the Nellore District, that the tenants * * * of Chellayapalem like their brothers in other villages of this District had right to occupy the land from generation to generation on payment of rent prescribed by custom, held that the tenants plea on the first head must be sustained. The High Court declined to raise such a presumption in favour of the tenants of the District including tenants of the village Chellayapalem, and correctness of that view was not challenged in this Court. On the second ground, the trial Court held on the evidence that the tenants rights were independent of prescription, and that they had not raised any plea of acquisition of rights of occupancy by contract, express or implied. The High Court observed that on the evidence no foundation is laid for invoking the presumption of lost grant to give a legal origin, or lawful title to long continued possession of the land by a particular tenant or tenants, and that the plea of acquisition of the right of occupancy based on prescription was not made out.

Court's reasoning:
18. But long possession fixity of rent, assertion of title in formal deeds may not necessarily justify an inference of permanent occupancy rights. Again the mere fact that the village was treated as one unit for the purpose of revenue administration does not justify any positive inference and the fact that five separate sanads were issued in respect of the minor inams without any evidence to prove the date and the terms of the grant leaves the matter on doubt. Some of these circumstances may prima facie support the inamdars and the other the tenants but on a careful review of all those circumstances, we are unable to disagree with the opinion of the High Court that the grant was not proved to be of a whole villageA large majority of the inams are ancient and the records bearing on the commencement, extent and nature of the grant would invariably be in the possession of the inamdars. To expect that tenants who are generally illiterate, and who came to occupy the lands not infrequently many years after the original grant, would be able to lead evidence on matters principally within the knowledge of the inamdars, and information whereof the inamdars would be interested in withholding, would be to attribute to the legislature gross ignorance of local conditions. In terms the presumption arises on proof that the grant is an inam expressed to be of a named village, and it arises even if it appears that there have been other minor inams granted for service or other tenure or have been reserved for communal purposes. The non-obstante clause in the Explanation, in our judgment, does not prescribe a condition for the raising of the presumption. The presumption arises only when it is proved that the grant is expressed to be of a named village, and the burden of proving that the grant is so expressed must lie upon the party who claims to bring the grant within the exception, but once it is proved that the grant is expressed to be of a named village, raising of the presumption will not depend upon proof that certain lands in the village were granted on service or other tenure, or were reserved for communal purposes before the grant of the villageWe do not deem it necessary to decide whether the suit for a mere declaration that the tenants were not occupancy tenants at the instance of the shrotriemdars, after determining the tenancy of some of the tenants was maintainable. The High Court has dismissed the suit against defendants 1 to 10 who were served with notices to quit, but against whom the shortriemdars did not claim a decree for possession. There is no appeal by the shortriemdars before us against defendants 1 to 10, and in any event on the view taken by us, the suit of the shrotriemdars must fail in its entiretyIn Appeal No. 342 of 1961 the decision recorded by us on the principal question does not put an end to the litigation. The dispute arose between two rival claimants to the rights of occupancy in a piece of land. The respondent in this appeal claims that he is a transferee of the original tenant, and the appellant claims to have acquired the rights of occupancy from the shrotriemdar. In suit No. 93 of 1947, four substantive issues were raised, and the issues are discussed in paragraphs 106 to 120 of the judgment of the Trial Judge. The High Court did not separately deal with those issues, but decided Appeal No.789 of 1950 on the review of the law which it declared in the principal appeal. We have disagreed with the High Court for reasons already set out and the other issues which have not been tried by the High Court have now to be tried.