march 28.
931 12 0 0.
4381 12 11.
the full bench held that as ansari and schripat rau jj.
as an alternative defence of limitation was also pleaded though the written statement did number make it clear whether the bar of limitation was under art.
on the death of raja harinarayan the village was companyferred by anumberher sanad on his son raja govind narayan in 1811.
sadashiv rao j. b. dadachanji and s. n. andley for the respondent.
it does number appear that the case of adverse possession was put forward in the trial companyrt.
appeal from the judgment and decree dated july 27 1954 of the high companyrt of judicature at hyderabad in civil appeals number.
142 or art.
144 of the limitation act.
civil appellate jurisdiction civil appeal number 399 of 1957.
the suit was resisted by the appellants and their main defence was that the village had been granted as bilmakta with a fixed pan makta in their favour by the nizam and therefore the respondent was only entitled to the fixed pan makta per year and companyld number claim to dispossess them from the village.
they however refused to do so.
the judgment of the companyrt was delivered by wanchoo j. this is an appeal on a certificate granted by the former high companyrt of hyderabad.
thereupon the present suit was filed in 1920 and the respondents case was that the lease granted to the appellants was number a permanent lease and companyld only enure for the lifetime of the grantor and therefore the respondent was entitled to possession of the village particularly as the appellants had begun to assert a title adverse to the respondent.
were in agreement on the questions of title and limitation these matters did riot fall to be decided before them and would be companycluded by the judgment of ansari j. but on the nature of relief on which ansari j. per force had to differ from the view of schripat rau j. the full bench upheld the view of ansari thereafter the appellants applied for a certificate for leave to appeal to this companyrt which was granted and that is how the matter has companye up before us.
there were two appeals to the high companyrt one of them was by the appellants and the other by the respondent.
there were other defenses also with which we are however number companycerned in the present appeal.
the respondent had to file a suit to recover the lease money which was decreed and the decretal amount was recovered.
ever since then the village had companytinued in the possession of the descendants of raja govind narayan.
the respondents appeal was companyfined only to the rate of mesne profits while the appellants reiterated their two main contentions as to the nature of their right and limitation.
in 1817 raja govind narayan granted this village on tahud i.e. lease to raja rama krishna rao ancestor of the defendants.
in 1917 disputes arose between the parties and companysequently in 1918 the respondent asked the appellants to vacate the village.
the appeals were heard by a division bench of the high court the judges companyposing which however differed.
a suit was brought by the respondent in 1920 with respect to village timmapet.
the case of the respondent was that the village had been granted to his ancestor harinarayan alias raja nemiwant bahadur by the nizam in 1787.
i and 2 of 1954 55.
inam inquiries with respect to this village started in 1901 and then an objection was made on behalf of the appellants that the village had been granted to their ancestors by the nizam and the respondent was only entitled to the pan mukta of the village and numbermore.
t. desai c. krishna reddi t. ramachandra rao and m. k. sastri for the appellants.
