The main legal point established in the judgment is that the entries in the revenue records changing the land from redeemed sagu to unredeemed sagu were invalid and not binding on the plaintiffs, and the relief of declaration and refund of the amount sought for by the plaintiffs were within time.

( 1 ) THE appeal is preferred againt the Judgment and Decree dated 21 - 2-1975 passed in O. S. No. 30/1975 by the Civil Judge, Coorg.

( 2 ) THE appellant is the defendant and the respondents are the plaintiffs.

( 3 ) THE suit was filed for a declaration that the suit schedule property i. e. , "all that redeemed coffee saguvali Mali bearing the survey Number 1/10 of 204. 42 acres in area situated in Kundacherri village, Bhagamandala Nadu, Mercara Taluk, Coorg District, karnataka State" is a Redeemed Estate and also for a direction to the defendant to pay the plaintiffs a sum of Rs. 3,57,777-81 with current interest thereon and costs.

( 4 ) THE Writ Petition is filed by the plaintiffs in the suit out of which the present Appeal arises. They have prayed for the folllowing reliefs:" (I) issue a Writ in the nature of Mandamus directing respondent 1 to intimate the 2nd respondent that the tenure of the land is "redeemed coffee saguvali malai" and therefore the petitioners are entitled to the grant of permission to cut and remove the trees for the purpose of bringing the land under coffee cultivation without insisting on the payment of timber value. (II) for a Writ in the nature of Mandamus directing respondent no. 2 to grant the petitioners permission to cut and remove the trees in Sy. No. 1/10 of Kundachari village, Bhagamandala Nadu, madikeri Taluk, Kodagu District and grant permission for transporting the same without insisting upon the payment of timber value; and (III) quash by a Writ in the nature of Certiorari the direction issued by the 1st respondent to the 2nd respondent in his no. FOR 425/80-81 dated 4-7-1980, directing the rejection of the application made by the petitioners (An. F.) (IV) for grant of reliefs as are appropriate in the circumstances of the case. "thus, the first relief prayed for in the Writ Petition is in effect similar to the declaratory relief sought for in the suit. The property in respect of which the relief is sought for in the Writ Petition is the same. Therefore, the Writ Petition has been referred to a Division bench so that it can be heard along with the appeal. Hence, the Writ petition is before us.

( 5 ) WE have heard the learned Government Advocate for the appellant-Defendant in the suit and also for the Respondents in the writ Petition and Sri Karanth, learned Counsel for the respondents-plaintiffs in the suit and also for the petitioners in the Writ petition.

( 6 ) THE plaintiffs are brothers. They claim to be the owners of the suit schedule property.

( 7 ) THE plaintiffs have founded the reliefs in the suit on the averments that the suit schedule property is a redeemed Saguvali malai because it was redeemed prior to 1911 as recorded in the Patta no. 39 dated 17th of December 1911 as redeemed estate; that subsequent change made in the entries pursuant to the general Order no. DIS. No. 1636 dated the 11th Jangary 1918 of the Commissioner of coorg, vide Taluk Office Did No. 1274 dated 16th January 1918 from redeemed to unredeemed is not valid in law inasmuch as such a change was effected without notice to the plaintiffs and their predecessors-in-title and without holding an enquiry into the correctness of the entry made prior to 1911; that when they tried to cut and remove the trees the officers of the defendant demanded seigniorage value of the trees on the ground that suit schedule property is not redeemed sagu; that ultimately the matter went up before the State Government and an order was passed on 17th august 1966 - Ex. P-9; that in accordance with the order - Ex. P-9; when the High Court decided THIMMANNA BHAT's CASE on 29-1 -1968, the State Government ought to have refunded the amount deposited pursuant to the order dated 17-8-1966 (Ex. P-9); that the plaintiffs demanded refund by the communication dated 14-1-1971 (Ex. P-13); that as the State Government did not move in the matter and did not refund the amount they gave the notice on 2-6-1973 as per Ex. P-17 and ultimat