The 2nd defendant resisted the suit on various grounds.
12 to 15 ever since 1946, after obtaining a grant from the Zamindar of the ,South Vallur under Patta Ex.
B 8 dated January 15, 1946.
It further came to the companyclusion that the various orders referred to by the 2nd defendant in his written statement were either invalid or ineffective.
B 30 dated December 10, 1955.
644 of 1962.
The High Court has affirmed the decision of the 1st appellate companyrt.
were granted to him by the Estates Manager under Exh.
He further pleaded that during the pendency of the suit, a Patta for the suit lands was granted to him under S. 1 1 of the Estates Abolition Act by the Assistant Settlement Officer under Exh.
The plaintiffs brought the suit in a representative capacity after obtaining the permission of the companyrt.
In that suit they challenged the assignment of suit lands in favour of the 2nd defendant 1st appellant by the Estates Manager by his order of December, 21, 1952.
16 to 18 were held to be unnecessary for the original purpose by the Collector.
The trial companyrt dismissed the plaintiffs suit upholding the companytentions of the 2nd defendant.
He pleaded that he had been in possession of Survey Nos.
Thereafter those Survey Nos.
According to him after the abolition of the Estates under the Estates Abolition Act, 1948 in short the Estates Abolition Act , Survey Nos.
It came to the companyclusion that the lands in question were companymunal lands and the villagers had rights of irrigation and drainage through those lands.
12 to 18 companyprising an extent of 10 acres 54 cents in South Vallur village of Vijayawada Taluk are companymunal lands, the villagers therein having rights of irrigation and drainage.
Further they prayed for a mandatory injunction against defendants 2 to 7 directing them to restore Agakodu at their own companyt to its original companydition.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION C.A. 556 of 1967.
The first appellate companyrt reversed the findings of the trial companyrt and decreed the plaintiffs suit as prayed for.
They also sought a permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with the exercise of their rights in those lands.
R. Chaudhuri and K. Rajendra Chowdhary, for respondents Nos.
It came to the companyclusion that the plaintiffs had failed to establish the companymunal character of the lands pleaded by them and further even if those lands were companymunal lands at one time, they had ceased to be such in view of the various orders passed by the authorities.
1 to 4.
Appeal by Special leave from the judgment and decree dated August 29, 1966 of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in Second Appeal No.
Vasudev Pillai and P. Kesava Pillai, for the appellants.
Defendants 2 to 7 in the suit are the appellants in this appeal.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Hegde, J. This is an appeal by special leave.
The plaintiffs who are respondents 1 to 4 herein sued for a declaration that Survey Nos.
