Gopisetti Narayanasawy Naidu Garu, Receiver, Nidadavole and Medur Estates vs Bondada China Narsigadu

Sundara Aiyar, J.—I am of opinion that on the evidence on record the suit was rightly dismissed. The plaintiff, the Receiver of the estate,

admits that the land was poramboke. There is no evidence as to the character of the poramboke. There is absolutely nothing to show that it is such

as the zemindar would be entitled to let out on cultivation, or to receive kist for, if cultivated without his permission. Mr. Nagabhushauam may be

right in his argument that the word poramboke"" is a comprehensive one including lands which might be cultivated. But there is no presumption that

any poramboke land is of such a character as could lawfully be cultivated or given out by the zemindar for purposes of cultivation. The only

evidence on record is that of the kurnam who says that the land is a part of Survey No. 1 of the Ankuvedu village belonging to the estate. Mr.

Nagabhushanam says the land that could not be cultivated would have no survey number. He has not shown me any evidence or any authority

which supports the assertion. Assuming the evidence of the kurnam is credible, the fact that the land is treated as part of the village is not sufficient

to show that it is cultivable poramboke. I dismiss the petition.