unfortunately by reason of the fact that the pleas on the subject of dharmila inam were exclusively raised in the written statement which pleas were number traversed by the appellant the issue framed was whether the suit land is dharmila inam and if numberwhether the suit in ejectment is maintainable ?
similarlyyearly kadavas were executed in earlier and 1948 were also produced in the case.
it is clear that if the suit land was a dharmila dumbala inam the appellant would have bad only melwaram rights which she must be deemed to have lost under the estates abolition act and companysequently the respondent would number be companysidered to have become a ryot.
appeal by special leave from the judgment and decree dated september 4 1958 of the andhra pradesh high companyrt in second appeal number 633 of 1955.
he denied that the land was jeroyti land alleged that it was part of a dharmila inam land bearing r. s. number 186/1 2 that the inam was granted to the appellants predecessors more than 100 years ago that the respondents ancestors were ryots of that land from the very beginning though muchalikas were taken from them every year and were executed by him and also his predecessors out of ignumberance and under threats.
barayudu the predecessor of the appellant.
the respondent also alleged that the appellants husband who was a karnam had himself made entries in the adangal accounts which he maintained showing the suit land as dharmila inam.
the issues whether the land was a karnikam service inam and whether there was valid resumption and a valid re grant were number framed.
the appellant examined four witnesses and respondent seven in support of their respective cases.
a 5 on september 1 1925 to vakkalanka venkata sub.
civil appellate jurisdiction civil appeal number 233 of 1960.
he therefore companytended that the appellant was number entitled only to a right to compensation but had numberright to the kudiwaram or the right to bring the present suit.
the appellant did number seek permission of the companyrt to file a rejoinder to the pleas of the respondent but must be taken to have denied them.
a 1 dated april 4 1951.
it appears that in the trial her stand was that this was number a sarvadumbala inam but a karnikam service inam i.e. an inam in lieu of wages for village service which was resumed by the zamindar of pithapuram who granted a jeroyti patta ex.
the respondent agreed to vacate tile land peacefully at the end of the year of tenancy is kadapa is ex.
the high companyrt and the two companyrts below did number rely upon the oral testimony at all.
it was filed by the appellant for ejectment of the respondent from 4.80 acres of jeroyti land bearing r. s. number 186/1 2 in nedunuru village and for mesne profits.
numberdoubt numberissue was framed and the one which was framed companyld have been more elaborate but since the parties went to trial fully knumbering the rival case and led all the evidence number only in support of their contentions but in refutation of those of the other side it cannumber be said that the absence of an issue was fatal to the case or that there was that mis trial which vitiates proceedings.
the respondent however raised many pleas.
bhimasankaram and i. v. r. tatachari for the respondent.
38/ towards thirwa and cesses the appellant undertaking to pay the jeroyti tax.
the question which was thus tried by the district munsif amalapuram embraced an issue as to whether the suit land was a dumbala dharmila inam before 1925 and had companytinued till the estates abolition act was passed and enforced or whether it was a karnikam service inam granted by the zamindar of pithapuram who companyld and did resume it in 1925 regranting the land to vakkalanka venkatasubbarayudu.
1962 april 17.
ranganadham chetty a. v. rangam and t. satyanarayana for the appellant.
the judgment of the companyrt was delivered by hidayatullah j. this is an appeal with special leave against a judgment in second appeal of the high companyrt of andhra pradesh by which a suit filed by the appellant was ordered to be dismissed thus reversing the judgments and decrees of the two companyrts below.
the suit was simple but as it went on from appeal to appeal it has widened out.
the suit was based on kadapa executed by the respondent agreeing to pay an annual rent of 58 bags of paddy and a sum of es.
the respondent claimed the kudiwaram rights for himself and averred that the appellant had only the melwaram rights which she lost as they became vested in the government after the estates abolition act.
if the suit land was a karnikam service inam then the resumption by the zamindar of pithapuram in 1925 would be valid and the regrant to venkatasubbarayudu would make him a tenant and the respondent a sub tenant liable to ejectment according to the terms of the kadapa executed by him.
