Sadasiva Aiyar, J.

1. The pleadings are sufficiently set out in the judgment to be pronounced by my learned brother and I shall not, therefore, repeat them in detail. Numerous questions were argued in this appeal, but I think it necessary to consider" and decide only the following as the other questions would fall to be considered only if I had decided the questions 2 to 4 against the plaintiffs. The questions I propose to consider are,--

(1) Is the river Krishna a public navigable river at the place where the plaintiffs five villages abut on the river?

(2) Are the plaintiffs, as riparian proprietors, entitled to the bed of the river Krishna up to the mid stream so far as it runs along side the villages of Pedapulipaka, Chodavaram, Madduru, Royyuru and Vallur?

(3) Apart from their right as riparian proprietors, did the plaintiffs predecessors-in title acquire the ownership of the river-bed by reason of the grant made by the Government at the time of the Permanent Settlement?

(4) Have the plaintiffs acquired title to the river bed in question by reason of exclusive possession or enjoyment?

(5) Are the plaintiffs entitled to mesne profits, as claimed in paragraph 28(c) of the plain