Venkatarama Ayyar, J.-This batch of second appeals arises out of suits instituted by the respondent for ejecting certain tenants. The properties are situated in a village called Yanikepadu. In 1754 one Venkatarayanim Garu who is stated to have been the then zamindar of Bezwada granted them as inam to one Chandra-sekhara Sastri, Exhibit P-1 and the inam was confirmed in 1865 during the enfranchisement proceedings. The plaintiff is the successor in interest of the inamdar. The defendants are the tenants in possession of various parcels of land comprised in this inam.

The plaintiff sued to eject them and to recover mesne profits. The defendants resisted the suits on the ground that they had occupancy right in the land and that, therefore, they could not be evicted. They also pleaded that there was no notice to quit as required by law and that, therefore, the suits were not maintainable. The learned District Munsif held that the defendants had not established occupancy rights and that, therefore, they were liable to be ejected. He also held that the plaintiff had sent registered notices to the defendants calling upon them to surrender possession and that the defendants had refused to receive them and that was sufficient notice. In the result the suits were decreed. On appeal the learned Subordinate Judge held that under the grant Exhibit P-1 both kudiwaram and meltyaram passed to the inamdar; that the defendant had not established any occupancy right and that, therefore, they were liable to be ejected. On the question of notice he held that there was no notice because the postal endorsement was not sufficient to establish refusal thereof by the defendants. But he held that as the lease deeds executed by the defendants contained a provision that they would surrender possession without notice they must be deemed to hold on the same terms when they continued in possession after the expiry of the lease period and that, therefore, no notice was necessary. In the result he confirmed the decrees of the first Court. Against that decision the defendants have preferred these second appeals. On the first question as to the right of the plaintiff to eject the defendants, it was contended by Mr. P. Somasundaram the learned advocate for the appellants that the findings of the Court below were substantially based on the decision in Venkateswarlu v. Lakshmanna1and as that had been reversed in Lakshmanna v. Venkateswarlu2, the lower Court should be directed to re-hear the appeals and send revised findings in the light of the decision of the Privy Council. We do not consider it necessary to do so because we have the original grant before us and all the relevant materials necessary to come to a correct conclusion have been placed before us. Exhibit P-1 is the original grant of the year 1754 by K. Venkatarayanim Garu to Sri Chandrasekhara Sastri. It runs as follows:-

“Fasli 1164:-For the purpose of your maintenance, I have as manyam given for you free in the name of Sitharama Jonnapalam (land) of the extent of one Khatti Kesarepalli Kathi......in Venikipadu of Bezwada. So you may, e’ lit g the said land cultivated every year, enjoy the whole produce thereof from your son to grandson in succession and live happily blessing us.”

This document is styled as Bhoodana Dharma Sasana Patram and the words “Bhoodana” is more consistent with the grant of the land than melwaram. The words “that the grantee is to get the land cultivated and enjoy the whole produce” clearly show that what is granted is both the warams. Exhibit P-4 is the confirmatory grant made by the succeeding zamindar, Thiruthirayanim Garu. It sets out the prior grant and adds:-

“So, you shall cultivate the said land and raise crops therein every year and pay to the Diwanam madras per year and happily enjoy the remaining produce from your son to the grandson and so in succession.”

Exhibit 5 is the extract from the inam register. It refers to the original grant of 1754 and the confirmatory grant of 1

Click Here to Read the rest of this document