Pusarla Peda Brahmaji v. V.T. Krishnamacharriar

It is argued that the orders of the Special Deputy Collector were ultra vires and outside the scope of his authority under Act I of 1876, because (1) plaintiffs claimed by prescription and that is not a case of alienation, (2) they and the Zamindar, to whom the land originally belonged, did not concur in applying for separate registration.

As regards (1) we have been shown no reason for excluding acquisitions by prescription from the description “sale or otherwise”.

As regards (2) Fischer v. Secretary of State for India in Council shows that notwithstanding the absence of both parties' concurrence in the application, the aggrieved party's remedy is by a suit under Sect. 6 of the Act.

In any case however it does not seem to us that plaintiffs have any grievance, on which they can sue. They admit before us that the suit land was originally the property of the Zamindar and that they have acquired it. In these circumstances they are, whatever the errors in the procedure of the Deputy Collector under the Act, bound to pay the portion of their peishcush and to submit to separate registration in token of that liability.

The Second Appeals are dismissed with costs, one set.

S. S.Appeals dismissed.