B. SUDERSHAN REDDY, J.

( 1 ) FIRST defendant -Tadepalligudem Municipality by its Commissioner, Tadepalligudem, West Godavari district in O,s. No. 432 of 1976 on the file of Principal District Munsif, Tadepalligudem, is the appellant in this second appeal.

( 2 ) THE suit O. S. No. 432 of 1976 filed by first and second respondents--1. Sri Rama Mandira Gram Seva Sangham, registered Society Tallamudunurupadu, represented by its Secretary and 2. Satti Surireddi respectively -- for declaration that they are owners of three tanks called: 1. Mutyalamma Cheruvu situated in R. S. No. 15; (2) Battuvani Gunta and (3) Harijanavada Cheruvu, both are situated in R. S. No. 79 of Tallanuidunurupadu village and for perpetual injunction restraining the appellant and another from interfering with the rights, possession and enjoyment of the first and second respondents over the above three tanks, has been dismissed by the trial Court after an elaborate consideration of the matter. The trial Court held that the plaintiffs had not made out any case what-so-ever. On an appeal in A. S. No. 12 of 1985 of the file of Sub-Court, Tadepalligudem, the first appellate Court reversed the decree and judgment of the trial Court and allowed the appeal. Hence the second appeal.

( 3 ) A perusal of the judgment of the first appellate Court would show that for the first time the first appellate Court had shifted the burden totally upon the defendants to establish their right, title and interest over the suit schedule tanks. There is no finding what-so-ever recorded by the first appellate Court about the title of the respondents/plaintiffs with regard to the suit schedule tanks. The first appellate Court merely observed that the plaintiffs are able to establish their management over the suit schedule tanks. At the same time the first appellate Court holds that the suit schedule tanks were shown to have been situated in poramboku land by virtue of Ex. B. 1, but the Government have not treated the tanks as their tanks at any time. The first appellate Court further held that the appellant/defendant did not get the suit tanks vested in them, for even after the Municipality has been formed, the Government have lost title over it, if any. It is difficult to appreciate as to how and on what basis the first appellate Court would come to such conclusion, particularly in view of the categorical finding recorded by the trial Court by holding that by virtue of the provisions contained in Section 2 (a) of the Andhra Pradesh (Andhra Area) Inams (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1956 (Act No. XXXVII of 1956) (for short the Act, 1956), the tanks have been vested in the Government which have been ultimately transferred to the Municipality under Section 133 of the Andhra Pradesh Municipalities Act, 1965 (Act No. 6 of 1965) (for Short the Act 1965 ). The trial Court held that the appellant -- Municipality is perfectly within its right to auction the fishing rights in the Banks which cannot be questioned by the respondents - plaintiffs as the respondents - plaintiffs miserably failed to show any title much less their uninterrupted possession over thirty (30) years as against the Government, even assuming that they have been enjoying the tanks even prior to 1965. This finding by the trial Court is based upon a specific pleading taken by the appellant- Municipality that all the tanks stood vested in the Government under the Act, 1956 after the abolition of Inams. This finding recorded by the trial Court is neither reversed nor upheld by the trial (sic Appellate) Court. The appellate Court was merely guided by Ex. A. 6, notification, showing the details of tanks vested in the Municipality and the same would show that these suit schedule three tanks are not mentioned in the notification. The mere feet that these three suit schedule tanks are not mentioned in the notification-Ex. A. 6 itself cannot be a ground to come to the conclusion that the respondents-plaintiffs have esta

Click Here to Read the rest of this document