JUDGMENT: The plaintiffs are the appellants. The first three plaintiffs are the sons and the 4th plaintiff is the widow of one Rajamani Chettiar. The defendant is the brother of Rajamani Chettiar. The suit properties are survey Nos. 23|10 measuring 1 acre and 12 cents and 2312 measuring 24 cents out of 49 cents. The suit was filed for a declaration and possession of these two items. The plaintiffs’ case was that the suit properties originally belonged to the joint family consisting of Rajamani Chettiar and his brother the defendant and that in a partition dated 15th September, 1959 they were allotted to the share of the plaintiffs. Since the defendant though a party to the partition deed claimed title to the suit properties on the ground that he has obained a patta under section. 19-A of the Estates (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, (XXVI of 1948) (hereinafter referred to as the Abolition Act) the plaintiffs had filed the suit. Though, as already stated, the suit related to two items the defendant did not contest the claim of the) plaintiffs in respect of survey No. 23|2; but in respect of survey 23J10 measuring 1 acre and 12 cents the case of the defendant was that he has obtained a patta under section 19-A of the Abolition Act that it is a new source of title granted by the Government in his favour and that, therefore, he is entitled to the property.

2. The trial Court dismissed the suit on the ground that on and from the notified date under the Abolition Act the suit lands which are tank poramboke vested in the Government and no private individual had any right or interest in them. Since the notification and taking over were prior to the partition in 15th September, 1959, the partition itself did not confer any right on the plaintiffs. The patta granted under section 19-A was a new source of title and since that title is in the name of the defendant the plaintiffs are not entitled to a declaration and recovery of possession. In that view the suit was dismissed. This view was confirmed by the lower appellate Court.

3. Both the Courts below missed the admission of the defendant that the plaintiffs are entitled to item No. 2 bearing survey No. 23|2 measuring 24 cents out of 49 cents. In spite of the concession made by the defendant the suit was dismissed even in respect of the same.

4. The plaintiffs have filed this second appeal, therefore, in respect of both the items, when it came up for admission under Order 41, rule 11, the learned Judge thought that the findings of the Courts below that the entire estate had vested in the Government and the patta granted under section 19-A is a new source of title is correct and that, therefore, it does not call for any interference and no error of law in respect of that item, therefore, arises. But since as regards item No. 2, there was no dispute at all, the dismissal of the suit was wrong and that there was an apparent error of law which requires admission. Accordingly in respect of item No. 2 alone the learned Judge had admitted the second appeal.

5. When this was pointed out to the learned counsel for the appellants, he argued that once an appeal is admitted under Order 41, rule 12 the entire appeal is before the Court and the appeal could not be restricted in the admission to any particular item or portion of the decree appealed against. In support of this contention the learned counsel relied on a Full Bench decision of this Court in Vattipalle Eswariah v. Vattipalle Rameswarayya1. In that decision when the defendant filed an appeal in respect of a number of items of properties and when it came up for admission one of the learned Judges passed an order admitting the appeal only in respect of one item. The question, therefore, for consideration was whether the Court in dealing with an appeal under Order 41, rule 11 can direct that it be admitted in part only. The Full Bench held after reviewing a number of decisions that not only the Court had no jurisdiction to restrict t

Click Here to Read the rest of this document