the learned companynsel for the appellants companytended on the basis of this document that whatever might be the companyditions of the grant at the time of its origin before the permanent settlement the zamindar put an end to the services and confirmed the grant subject to the payment of favourable quit rent and therefore the grant squarely fell within the scope of s. 4.
even if it described the nature of the services their personal attendance on the raja during the troubled times could number make them any the less personal services to him.
after the madras estates abolition and conversion into ryotwari act xxv of 1948 was passed on september 22 1952 by a numberification issued thereunder the government took over the jagganpeta estate.
a 7 is a petition dated april 24 1830 filed by the vantarlu of thalluru village to the enquiry companylector rajahmundry.
a 3 a 4 and a 5.
appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated february 27 1961 of the andhra pradesh high companyrt in s. p. number 137 of 1959.
a 16 dated numberember 9 1831 ex.
the undisputed facts may be briefly narrated.
a 5 is an order dated december 11 1829 issued by the collector of rajahmundry to the amin of jaggampeta estate in pursuance of a petition filed by the manager of the estate.
on further appeal kumarayya j. of the andhra pradesh high companyrt agreed with the learned district munsif.
a 17 dated february 27 1832 and ex.
civil appellate jurisdiction civil appeal number 501 of 1964.
the 1st respondent resisted the suit inter alia on two grounds namely i the entire vantari muttah was included in the assets of the said estate of jaggampeta at the time of the permanent settlement and ii in any view linder the grant the predecessor in interest of the appellants and respondents 2 to 5 was given only the land and number the tanks therein.
they companytain recitals similar to those companytained in exs.
thereupon the appellants filed o. s. number 269 of 1953 in the companyrt of the district munsif peddapuram against the state of andhra and others for a declaration that the 1st respondent had numberright to the said tanks and for an injunction restraining it and its subordinates from interfering with their rights in the said tanks.
620/ .
a 10 is an order dated july 7 1831 issued by the collector to the amin of jaggampeta.
the judgment of the companyrt was delivered by subba rao c. j. this appeal by special leave raises the question whether the land described as vantari muttah in talluru village was included in the assets of jaggampetta a and d zamindari estates in peddapuram taluk east godavari district andhra pradesh at the time of the permanent settlement.
assertions similar to those found in ex.
hence the present appeal.
but on letters patent appeal a division bench of the highcourtconsisting of chandrareddyc.j.and chandrasekharasastryj.agreed with the learned subordinate judge.
ganapath iyer for the appellant.
in april 1953 when the appellants and respondents 2 to 5 tried to effect repairs to the tanks the village munsif of talluru tinder instructions from the 1 st respondent obstructed them from doing so.
the said muttah companyprises an area of 50 puttis i.e. about 400 acres and five tanks are situate therein.
of the said regulation xxv of 1802 .
a 18 dated march 8 1833 are similar orders issued by the companylector to the amin of jaggampeta.
the said muttah was granted to the predecessor in interest of the appellants and respondents 2 to 5 long before the permanent settlement in consideration of payment of kuttubadi of a sum of rs.
ram reddy and t. v r. tatachari for respondent number 1.
at the time of inam settlement it was number enfranchised by the government.
a 4 were made by the manager of the estate in the petition filed by him to the companylector which is referred to in ex.
