Point of Law : Section 3 of Estates Abolition Act sets out consequences of notification of an Estate under Act. Upon such notification, entire estate included in assets of "Zamindari" estate including waste lands etc., shall stand transferred to Government and vest in the Government free of all encumbrances.

JUDGMENT :

This appeal is filed by defendants 1, 2, 4, 6, 7 and 14 in the suit against the judgment and decree of the District Judge, Vizianagaram in O.S.No.55 of 1996, dated 25.02.1997.

2. The suit was originally filed as O.S.No.31 of 1986 on the file of the Sub-Court, Parvathipuram and renumbered as O.S.No.144 of 1987 when it was transferred to the Sub-Court Bobbili. Thereafter, it was renumbered as O.S.No.71 of 1989 when it was transferred to the Sub-Court, Vizianagaram, and finally as O.S.No.55 of 1996 when it was withdrawn to the District Court at Vizianagaram.

3. For the ease of convenience, the parties to the appeal are referred to as they are arrayed in the suit.

4. The suit was filed by the plaintiffs for recovery of possession over three items of property set out in the schedule attached to the plaint and for mesne profits thereon. Item-1 relates to Ac.5.00 of land in Sy.No.41/1P. Item-2 relates to Ac.0.30 cents of land in Sy.No,.41/2 (new R.S.No.41/3). Item-3 relates to Ac.5.00 of land in Sy.No.41/2 (new R.S.No.42/1). An extent of Ac.4.52 cents in Sy.No.10/5 (new R.S.No.10/6) has also been set out as Item-4. However, no relief is sought against Item-4. All these lands fall within Borrajavalasa village. The lands falling within Items-1 to 3 in the schedule are referred to as schedule lands.

5. The 2nd plaintiff is the widow of the younger brother of the 1st plaintiff. The case of the plaintiffs was that the 1st plaintiff and late Akundi Perisastry are brothers. Defendants 8 to 10 are sons of the 1st plaintiff and defendants 11 to 13 are the sons of the 2nd plaintiff. Various extents of land including the schedule lands had been purchased, in Borrajavalasa Agraharam, which was declared as an Inam Estate, by late Akundi Narayana, who was the father of the 1st plaintiff and late Akundi Perisastry. After the abolition of Estates under the Madras Estates Abolition Act, the entire Borrajavalasa Agraharam vested in the State Government on 25.02.1959. Thereafter, a survey was conducted of the lands in the said village and, according to the plaintiffs, the schedule lands and other lands belonging to the plaintiffs’ family were categorised as “Gayali” lands (waste lands). The plaintiffs’ family had been given D-form pattas in relation to the lands belonging to the plaintiffs’ family other than the schedule lands. As no pattas had been granted in connection with the schedule lands, applications were made by the 1st plaintiff and his late brother late Akundi Perisastry to the Settlement Officer, Visakhapatnam, under Section 15 of the Madras Estate Abolition Act and the same was accepted by the Settlement Officer, who ordered issuance of pattas in favour of the 1st plaintiff and his brother in relation to Items-1 to 3 and also in relation to Item-4 of the plaint schedule. However, land admeasuring Ac.2.14 cents in R.S.No.41/1 and Ac.0.40 cents in R.S.No.42 were given to the members of the Bonu family by way of D-form patta. The plaintiffs were in possession and enjoyment of the land since then. The pattas were given in the names of various members of the family, but it is the common case of the plaintiffs as well as the other members, who are arrayed as defendants, that the property remained the property of the joint family of the plaintiffs.

6. According to the plaintiffs, Defendants 1 to 7 believing the words of certain persons, who were inimical to the family of the plaintiffs that the lands covered in Items-1 to 3 of the plaint schedule are Gayali lands and they would be entitled to possession of the land being weaker sections, had made attempts to trespass into the land and take over possession of the lands. The plaintiffs, and defendants 8 to 13, having recognised this intention of defendants 1 to 7, had got issued a notice dated 16.03.1986 to defendants 1 to 7 that the lands in Items-1 to 3 of the plaint schedule belong to the family of the plaintiffs and defendants 1 to 7 should not disturb their possession over the land. Howev