The State of Andhra Pradesh represented by the District Collector, Krishna, the first defendant in O.S.No.54 of 1983 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Machilipatnam, had preferred the present appeal being aggrieved by the decree and judgment made therein.

2. The first plaintiff Prabhala Subrahmanyam died during the pendency of the suit O.S.No.54 of 1983 and plaintiffs 2 to 4 were added as per the orders dated 11-09-1990 in I.A.No.944 of 1990. The said plaintiffs 2 to 4 are shown as respondents 1 to 3 herein. The defendants 4 to 9 in the said suit are shown as respondents 4 to 11 in the present appeal. The appeal was dismissed for default as against R-7 to R-10 by virtue of an order made by this Court dated 27-07-2000.

3. The learned Assistant Government Pleader for appeals representing the appellant had taken this court through the respective pleadings of the parties, the evidence available on record, and the findings recorded by the trial Court and would maintain that even if such attachment to be taken as illegal, the Government cannot be fastened with liability. The learned Assistant Government Pleader for appeals also would maintain that no evidence was adduced on behalf of the plaintiffs to establish that the heaps harvested would fetch the amount as claimed. The only witness – 4th plaintiff had no knowledge about the same and no documents had been filed by the plaintiff in this regard. The learned counsel also would submit that the learned Subordinate Judge, Machilipatnam could not approve the legal position in proper perspective.

4. The learned Assistant Government Pleader for appeals also would submit that the provisions of Section 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure also had not been complied with and at any rate the suit is barred by limitation. The learned Assistant Government Pleader for appeals ultimately would conclude that in the light of the specific grounds raised this appeal shall be allowed. None represents the contesting respondents 1 to 3. As afore said the appeal was dismissed for default as against R-7 to R-10. R-4 to R-6 and R-11 also are not represented by any counsel.

5. Heard the learned Assistant Government Pleader for appeals.

6. Before taken up further discussion on the points which may arise for consideration in this appeal, it may be appropriate to have a glance at the respective pleadings of the parties, the issues settled, the evidence available on record and the findings recorded by the trial Court, the learned Subordinate Judge, Machilipatnam, in brief.

7. Pleadings of the parties:-

Averments made in the plaint:

The plaintiff is the absolute owner of Ac.9.00 of wet land in patta Nos.1011, 304, and 443 bearing R.S.No.549, 552, 552 and 566/2 and 566/3 in the village of Peda Thummidi within the jurisdiction of Kaikaluru Taluk and the plaintiff is always in possession and enjoyment of the said lands and he is personally cultivating the lands with the assistance of the farm servants and also casual labourers. One Bolla Venkanna, son of Kanakayya of China Thummidi was functioning as the Nigaman of the plaintiff regarding the agricultural operations etc., in respect of the afore mentioned lands during the absence of the plaintiff who was employed as Senior Lecturer in English is the Sir C.R.Reddy College at Eluru. The plaintiff owned and possessed a thatched shed in China Thummidi village wherein the mother of the plaintiff was then residing and with who the plaintiff was staying during his visits to his lands in the village in connection with the effective carrying out of his cultivation and personal supervision of the agricultural operations whenever it become necessary. During Fasli 1390, the Plaintiff raised Dalva crop in an extent of Ac.8.00 out of his Ac.9.00 of land and he got the said crop harvested under his personal supervision and got the same heaped in five heaps in the said lands and accordingly to the most modest estimate, the total quantity of paddy contained in the s