# Slolt •f Andhra Praths1t v. D uvvuru Balaf'ami Redh

- **Citation:** [1963] 1 S.C.R. 173
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 1963
- **Bench:** B. P. Sinha, P. B. Gajendrag.\Dkar, K. N. W.Anchoo, N. Ra.Jgopala Ay\'Angar, L. V1mKATARAIHA ArY.-\R
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/slolt-f-andhra-praths1t-v-d-uvvuru-balaf-ami-redh-2533
- **Pages:** 12

## Headnote

Subsoil Right-Shrotriem inam-W hen includes sub-soil
rights.
The respondents has obtained leases for mining mir::a
from the owners of a certain 8ltrolri'.em village for one year with
a stipulation that the lessors were bound to renew the !cases for
such periods as may be desired by the lessees.
Shortly, thereafter, the village waseanoifie.d and the estate of the owners
wns resumed by the pptllant. The respondent conten<led tha~
1!162
Central l'1•Utrics
Ltd.
v.
Si.ate of M al:oro!hlra
Afyar J.
1962
April 2.
1962
Slolt •f
Andhra Praths1t
v.
D uvvuru Balaf'ami
Redh
174
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1963]
the appellant was bound to renew the leases. The appellant
contended that the shrotriemdars had no right in the minerals,
that they con]d not have granted any leases for mining the
n1inerals a11d that as such no question of renewing the leases
arose.
JI cld, that sltrotriemdara had no rights in the minerals
and the leases granted by them to the respondent had no legal
effect.
The mere fact that a person was the holder of an
inam grant was not by itself enough to establish that the inam
grant included the grant of sub-soil rights in addition to
surface rights. The grant of sub-soil r;ghts depended upon
the language used in the grant ; if there were no words in the
grant fr· m which grant of sub-soil rights could be properly
inferred it would only convey ·surface rights to the grantee.
'fhe original grant in the present case was not available and
the inam .'air register did not show that the grant included
the grant of sub-soil rights. No inference could he drawn of
the grant of sub-soil rights from the fact that the inam grant
iucludcd poramboke l unculturable land) also. The difficulty
that may arise in the woking of the mines on account of the
mines vesting in the state and the surface rights vesting in the
shrotriPmdars could not make the shrotriemdar8 co-sharers in the
sub-soil rights so as to entitle them to grant leases of the subsoil rights.
Secretary of State for India in Council v. Srinivasa Ohariar,
( 1920) L. R. 48 I. A. 56, applied.
Secretary of State v. Krishna Rao, (I 945) L. R. 72 I. A.
211, dis!inguished.
CIVIL APPELLATE JurusDICTION: Civil Appeal
Nos. 252 and 253 of 1958.
Appeals by Certificate and speoial·leave from
the judgment and order dated August 5, 1955, of
the former Andhra High Court in Writ Appeal No.
13 of 1955.
AND
VICE VERSA
D. Narsaraju, Advocate General for the State of
AnilhraPradesh, D. Parsanna Kumari, T. V. R. Tatachari and P. D. Menon, for the appellant (In C. A.
No. 252 of 58) and Respondent No. 1 (Jn C. A. No,
~53 of 58).
·
\
1 s.c.R.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
175
P. Ram Reildy, for the the appellants (In C. A.
No. 253 of 58) and Respondent No. 1 to 3 (In C. A.
No. 252 of 58).
A. V. V ishwanatha Sastri and J(. R. Ohoudhri,
for the respondent No. 2 {In C. A. No. 253 of 58).
1962. April 2. The Judgment of the Court was
delivered by.
·
WANCHOO, J.-These are 'two connected appeals
arising out of the same judgment of the Andhra.
Pradesh High Court. The main appeal No. 252 is
by the State of Andhra Pradesh while the other appeal No. 253 is by Duvvuru Balarami Reddy and
others. We shall dispose of them by this, common
judgment and will hereinafter refer to the State
of Andhra Pradesh a.s the appellant and Duvvuru
Balarami Reddy and others at ~he respondents. ·
The brief facts necessary for present are these. The
respondents had filed a writ petition for the issue of
a ~vrit in the nature of ~endamus or any other appropriate writ directing the appellant to give permission to the respondents to carry on mica mining
operations in survey No. 49/1 in the village of
Ananthamadugu in Rapur Taluk of Nellore district
subject to the respondents executing as agreement
in the manner provided under the' Minera 1 Conces~
sion Rules, 1949 (hereinafter refe1-red . to as the
Rules) and conforming to the conditions mentioned therein. . The case of the respondents was that
they had obtained leases for mica mining purposes
from

## Text

1 S.C.R.
SUPRE~IE COURT REPORTS
173
of jurisdiction and the order of assessment passed
in those proceedings cannot be held to be without
jurisdiction and no suit will lie for impe<tehing them
on the ground that s. lU { l) had not been followed.
This must a fortiori be so when the appeJJant hits
itself submitted to jurisdiction and made a return.
We accordingly agree with the learned Judges that
even if the registration of the appellant as a
dealer under s. 8 is bad that has no effect on the
validity of the proceedings taken against it under
the Act and the assessment of tax made thereunder.
We should add that s. ~l of the Act bare tho
jurisdiction of Ci vii Courts to entertain suits ea.Hing
in question any orders passed by tho authr)rities
under the Act, and in the view which we have t<1ken
it is unnecessary to gn into the question \Vhether
in view of this section
the preacnt
:-;uit
is
maintainable.
There are no merits whatsoever in this appeal
and it is dismissed with costs.
Appeal d-isniis.w?A.1.
STAT.E OF ANDHRA PRADESH
v.
DUVVURU BALARAMI R~DDY
(B. P. SINHA, c. J;, P. B. GAJENDRAG.\DKAR, K. N.
W.ANCHOO, N. RA.JGOPALA AY\'ANGAR, and
T, L. V1mKATARAIHA ArY.-\R, JJ.)
Subsoil Right-Shrotriem inam-W hen includes sub-soil
rights.
The respondents has obtained leases for mining mir::a
from the owners of a certain 8ltrolri'.em village for one year with
a stipulation that the lessors were bound to renew the !cases for
such periods as may be desired by the lessees.
Shortly, thereafter, the village waseanoifie.d and the estate of the owners
wns resumed by the pptllant. The respondent conten<led tha~
1!162
Central l'1•Utrics
Ltd.
v.
Si.ate of M al:oro!hlra
Afyar J.
1962
April 2.
1962
Slolt •f
Andhra Praths1t
v.
D uvvuru Balaf'ami
Redh
174
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1963]
the appellant was bound to renew the leases. The appellant
contended that the shrotriemdars had no right in the minerals,
that they con]d not have granted any leases for mining the
n1inerals a11d that as such no question of renewing the leases
arose.
JI cld, that sltrotriemdara had no rights in the minerals
and the leases granted by them to the respondent had no legal
effect.
The mere fact that a person was the holder of an
inam grant was not by itself enough to establish that the inam
grant included the grant of sub-soil rights in addition to
surface rights. The grant of sub-soil r;ghts depended upon
the language used in the grant ; if there were no words in the
grant fr· m which grant of sub-soil rights could be properly
inferred it would only convey ·surface rights to the grantee.
'fhe original grant in the present case was not available and
the inam .'air register did not show that the grant included
the grant of sub-soil rights. No inference could he drawn of
the grant of sub-soil rights from the fact that the inam grant
iucludcd poramboke l unculturable land) also. The difficulty
that may arise in the woking of the mines on account of the
mines vesting in the state and the surface rights vesting in the
shrotriPmdars could not make the shrotriemdar8 co-sharers in the
sub-soil rights so as to entitle them to grant leases of the subsoil rights.
Secretary of State for India in Council v. Srinivasa Ohariar,
( 1920) L. R. 48 I. A. 56, applied.
Secretary of State v. Krishna Rao, (I 945) L. R. 72 I. A.
211, dis!inguished.
CIVIL APPELLATE JurusDICTION: Civil Appeal
Nos. 252 and 253 of 1958.
Appeals by Certificate and speoial·leave from
the judgment and order dated August 5, 1955, of
the former Andhra High Court in Writ Appeal No.
13 of 1955.
AND
VICE VERSA
D. Narsaraju, Advocate General for the State of
AnilhraPradesh, D. Parsanna Kumari, T. V. R. Tatachari and P. D. Menon, for the appellant (In C. A.
No. 252 of 58) and Respondent No. 1 (Jn C. A. No,
~53 of 58).
·
\
1 s.c.R.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
175
P. Ram Reildy, for the the appellants (In C. A.
No. 253 of 58) and Respondent No. 1 to 3 (In C. A.
No. 252 of 58).
A. V. V ishwanatha Sastri and J(. R. Ohoudhri,
for the respondent No. 2 {In C. A. No. 253 of 58).
1962. April 2. The Judgment of the Court was
delivered by.
·
WANCHOO, J.-These are 'two connected appeals
arising out of the same judgment of the Andhra.
Pradesh High Court. The main appeal No. 252 is
by the State of Andhra Pradesh while the other appeal No. 253 is by Duvvuru Balarami Reddy and
others. We shall dispose of them by this, common
judgment and will hereinafter refer to the State
of Andhra Pradesh a.s the appellant and Duvvuru
Balarami Reddy and others at ~he respondents. ·
The brief facts necessary for present are these. The
respondents had filed a writ petition for the issue of
a ~vrit in the nature of ~endamus or any other appropriate writ directing the appellant to give permission to the respondents to carry on mica mining
operations in survey No. 49/1 in the village of
Ananthamadugu in Rapur Taluk of Nellore district
subject to the respondents executing as agreement
in the manner provided under the' Minera 1 Conces~
sion Rules, 1949 (hereinafter refe1-red . to as the
Rules) and conforming to the conditions mentioned therein. . The case of the respondents was that
they had obtained leases for mica mining purposes
from various CO·Owners in the shrotriem village Of
Ananthamadugu on March 24, 1952. Thereafter on
May 27, J 953, this village was notified under the
Madras Estates. (Abolition and
Conversion into
Ryotwari) Act, No. XXVI of 1948, (hereinafter
referred to as the Act) and the interest of the shrotriem owners W')B taken over by the appellant. The
leases granted to the respondents were for a period
of one year and one of the terms provided that the
~essors were bou11d to extend and renew the period
1962
State of
.Andhra Pradesli
v.
Duvouru Balarami
Reddy
1962
State of
Andhra Pradesh
v.
Duovuru Balo.rami
/fed <[y
ft'anchoo J,
176
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1963]
of lease for such period as may be desired by the
lessess ,subject to the Rules. After the estate was
taken over, the question arose whether the leas<>s
were enforceable against the Government under s.20
(l) of the Aot. In November 1953, the Manager of
Estates, appointed on behalf of the Government,
· held that the leases were. enforceable against the
Government. This order was confirmed by the
Collector of Nellore. Thereupon there was a revision petition by one of the co-owners of the shrotriem who was not a party to the leases before
the Board of Revenue. The respondents also applied to the Government for permission to work the
mines. The Government however did not grant
such permission. The respondents contended that
the Government had no right to withheld permission
to work the mines. Therefore, the writ petition was
filed asking for the issue of a writ in the nature of
mandamus or any other appropriate writ directing
the appellant to give permission to the respondents
to carry on mica mining in accordance with the
leases.
'.
!
The petition was opposed on behalf of the
!
appellant and the main contention on its behalf
,A1
was that the village in question being a shrotriem
inam village there was no presumption that the
inam grant included the grant of sub·soil rights
also to the shrotriemdars. Therefore, the respondents could not claim· any rights higher than
these of their lessors. In effect, the appellant had
contended that the lessors had no rights to the minerals and therefore the leases even if not void within
the meaning of s.20 of the Act would not confer any
rights on the respondents to claim as a matter of
right the grant of permission to work the mines
from the appellant and that it was entirely within
the discretion
of the State whether to grant a
mining lease or not in accordance with "the Rules.
It was also stated in that the revision filed .before
the Boarq of ~evenue had been sta~ed as the point~
1 s.c.R.
SUPB.EME COURT REPORTS
177
raised before the Board were covered by the questions involved in the writ petition.
On these pleadings the main question that
arose for decision was whether the shrotriemdars
had any rights in the minerals at all and were enti·
tied to grant leases thereof. If ~e shrotriemdars
had no right in the minerals the grant of lease by
them would be of no value :i.nd would not entitle
the respondents to claim a mining lease under the
Rules from the appellant as a matter of right.
The learned Single Judge who heard the writ
petition cams to the conclusion that there was
nothing to show that the inam grant in the present
case covered the right to minerals. In consequence,
it was held that the respondents did not get any
rights under the said leases to the minerals. The
learned Judge then considered the other points
raised in the petition with which we are however
not concerned and eventUally dismissed it.
The respondents went in appeal to a Division
Bench of the High Court., and the appeal court seems
to have held on a review of the various standing
orders of the Board of Revenue of the composite
State of Madras that the State was only entitled to
impose a royalty on minerals taken out by the shro·
triem inamdar. .It was pointed out that this seemed
to be in accordance with commonsense as the
''grantee is entitled to the surface rights and the
grantor to the sub-soil rights and as the latter rights
can only be exercised by enterin~ upon the surface,
it is only natural and just that they should share
what is produced by working the mine, since one
cannot enter upon the land, as he has no right to
do so and the other cannot work the- mine, as he has
no right to the land". This would seem to suggest
that the appeal court held that the i-:ub-soil rights
belonged to the State and not to the inamdars; but
because.of the difficulty that _arose on . account of
1961
s .. ,. •f
An'hr• hal11/t
v.
Duvvuru Raltw4'11 i
B1t14y
Wa1"AooJ,
196a
State of
Andhra Pradesh
v.
Vuvvuru Balarami
R'tBd.J
w ... ,,,.,, J.
178
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1963)
the surface rights being in the inamdar and sub-soil
rights being in the State, it apparently held that the
inamdar and the Government should share what is
produced by working the mine. Finally, however,
the appeal court dismissed the appeal on the ground
that the period of one year for which tho leases had
been granted had ~xpired and. the period of renewal
which
the
respondents could
get under the
Hules also had expired before the decision of the
appeal court. It relied in this connection on the
decision of this Court in K. N. Guruswamy v. The
St,ate of Mysore (1) : but as the respondents had
failed on account of the expiry of time t4ey were
allowed their costs.
This was followed by an application by the
State for a certificate which was granted, and that
is how the State's appeal•has come up before us.
As for the appeal by special leave by the respondents, they contend that the decision being in their
favour on the merits, the High Court should have
ordered the State to grant them a lease even though
the period fixed in the original leases and the period
of renewal permissible under the Rules had expired.
The main question therefore that fails for
decision in these appeals is whether shrotriemdars
ea.n be said to have rights in the minerals. This
matter has been the subject of consideration by the
Madras High Court on a number of occasions and
eventually the controversy was set at rest by the
decision of the Judicial Committee in Sooretary of
St,ate for India in Council v. S rinivasa Ghaiiar (2)
That case came on appeal to the Judicial Committee
from the decision of the Madras High Court
in the Secretary of State for India in Council v.
Sreenivasa Ckariar ('). The controversy before the
Madras High Court was with respect to . a shrotriem
inam which was grapted by the Nawab ·of Carnatio
(I) [!955) I S.C.R. so.;
(2) (1920) L.R. 48 I.A. 56.
(3) (1917) 1.L.R. 40 Mad. 268.
·
I S.C.R.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
179
in 1750 a.nd ha.d been enfranchised by the British
Government in 1862. The inamdar started quarrying stones in the land granted to him and the
Go'vernment claimed that it had a right to levy
royalty or seigniorage fee on stones quarried by tbe
inamdar. The ina.mdar contended on the other hand
that an enfranchised inam was exactly in the same
position as a za.mindari estate under the permanent
settlement and that he was entitled to the entire
sub-soil rights and the Government was not entitled
to levy royalty or seigniorage fee on stones quarried
by him. The High Court held that under the terms
of the grant, the gra.ntor conveyed all that the grantor had in the soil i~cluding sub-soil rights and
therefore it was not open to the Government to
levy any royalty or ~eigniorage fee on stones quarried by the inamdar. In effect, the decision of the
High Court negatived the ofaim of the Governm~nt
to sub-soil rights, for the· Government could only
levy royalty or seigniorage fee if it had sub-soil
rights and the inamdar had no such rights.
This decision was taken in appeal to the Judicial Committee as already indicated above, and. the
controversy between the parties was that the inamdar claimed a decree establishing his ,full rights to
the said village to the rocks and hills within its
boundaries. The State on the other hand while
· admitting that there had been an inam grant of the
village to the inamdar contended that there was no
conveyance of the rights to minerals in the village.
The Judicial Committee held that the grant of a
village in inam might be no more than aii.
· aasignment of revenue, and even where there was
included a grant of land, what interest in the land
passed must depend on the language of the instrument and the circumstances of each case.
The
Judicial Committee alC!o considered the standing
orders of the Board of Revenue of 1890 and 1907
which have been referred to by the appeal court in
1962
State of .
Andhra Pradesli
v.
Duvvuru B•larami
Reddy
Wanchoo J.
1982
i..9tale of
.Andhr11 Prr.<llsh
v.
Du11vuru Balarami
Redqy
Wanchoo J,
180
SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1963]
the judgment under appeal. This decision thus establishes that the mere fact that a person is the holder
of an inam grant would not by itself be enough to
establish that the inam grant included the grant of
sub-soil rights in addition to the surface rights and
that the grant of sub-soil rights would depend upon
the language used in the grant. If there are no
words in the grant from which the grant of subsoil rights can be properly inferred the inam grant
would only convey the surface rights to the grantee,
and the inam grant could not by itself he equated
to a complete transfer for value of all that was in
the grantor. In particular, the Judicial Committee
stressed the use of the words "the produce of the
seasons each year" used in the grant to show that
only the surface rights were granted in that case.
It is not disputed that eversince the decision of
the Judicial Committee in Srinimsa Chariar's case(')
that has been t.he law wfoh respect to sub-soil rights
of inamdars us distinct from zamindars under the
permanent settlement. The B,Jards standing orders
of lS!JO and l!l07 to which the appeal court has
referred in it; judgment were also considered by
the Judicial Committee and it is now too late in the
day to use them to find out the rights of the ina.m·
dars and the Government in the minerals under the
soil. As the decision of the Judicial Committee
shows, the standing orders of the Board of Revenue themselves show how the views of the Government changed from time to time on this question.
The older view seems to have been that the subsoil rights were in the inamclars but from 1907 at
any rate the Government has taken the view that
sub-soil rights are in the Government unless there
is anything in the grant to the contrary. It is this
later view which was upheld by the Judicial Committee in Srinivasa Chariar's case(') and this view has
ever since prevailed as to the rights of the Government in the minerals under the soil in the cast> of
(I) (1920) L.R.48 I.A. 56.
I
1 S.C.R.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
181
inams. We are unable to see how this decision as to
the rhzhts of the Government to the minerals under
the soil can bb distinguished on the ground that the
decision dealt only with the question of royalty. It
is obvious that the Government could charge royalty
only if it had the right to the minerals under the
soil and not the inamdars. What therefore we have
to see is .whether on the terms of the grant in this
case the shrotriemdars can be said to have been
granted the sub-soil rights also.
So far as this matter is concerned, . there does
not seem to have been a serious controversy in the
High Court and it does not appear that the respondents contended that under the terms of the grant to
the shrotriemdars the latter were entitled to sub-soil
rights. We have already referred to that part oft.he
judgment of the appeal court which suggests that
ev.en the appeal court was of the view that the subsoil rights were in the Government in this case and the
surface rights were in the shrotriemdars. The original
grant is not available and all that we have is the
irt4m fair register of 1861 and all that is stated in
that register is that the grant is for the personal
advantage of the holder. There is nothing therefore
in the inam fair .register to show that the grant included the grant of sub-soil rights.
It is however urged on behalf of the respondents that the grant included Poramboke, and from
the fact that Poramboke was also included it should
be inferred that mere surface rights were not the
subject-matter of the grant. Reliance in this connection has been placed on the decision of the Judicial Committee in Secretary of State v. Krishna
Rao. n). The dispute in that case related to levy of
water cess under the Madras Irrigation Cesa Act,
(No. 7 of 1865). The Judicial Committee pointed
ant that the inam grant in that case included not
only dry, wet and garden land but also porambok~
ll) (1945) L.R. 72 I.A. 211,
1969
St'lteof
Andhra Pradesh
Duvvuru Balarami
Reddy
Wanchoo J,
196Z
Sta!1 of
.Andhr• f'r14Juh
••
DuutJuru Balarami
a,dd.:1
War1chooJ.
182 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1963)
i.e. unculturable land. ·This was held to indioate
that full proprietary rights were granted and therefore the Government could not char~ any water
cess, It is urged for the respondents that this case
shows that where poramboke is also granted, the
grantee gets all the rights including the sub-soil
rights in full proprietorship. It should however be
remembered that the dispute in that case was
whether the inamdar was entitled to free irrigation
from water sources lying in the shrotiem village by
virtue of the grant or whether the grantor oould
levy a cess under the Madras Irrigation Cess Aet.
There was no dispute as to the sub.soil rights in
that case, the dispute being confined to surface
rights relating to water. The Government oontended
in
that
case
that
the
grant
to
the
inamdar
was
only
of the
melvaram
or the right of the revenue from the lands.
while the respondent's contention was that the
grant carried not only the melmram but also the
proprietary interest in the land itself and therefore
the Government had no right to levy the irrigation
cess. It was in that oonneotion that the Judioial
Committee held that the grant of poramhoke i. e.
unoulturable land, was one of the factors that indi-
. cated that it was not a mere grant of melvaram but
full proprietary right. It is remarkable howeviir
that though the Judicial Committee came to the
conolusion in that case that full proprietary right
had been granted, it referred to the earlier decision
in Srinivasa Ohariar's case during the cours!J of. the
judgment. This later deoision therefore in our opinion cannot be read in such a way as to lay down
that wherever poramboke is included in the inam
grant, a presumption must be drawn that the inam
grant included sub-soil rights also; all that may be
possible to infer by the inclusion of poramboke on
the basis of this decision is that all the surface
rights ·were granted and not merely the melvaram as
' ..
-< I
l S.C.R.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
183
was contended in that case. The fact therefore that
in the inam fair register in this case the grant includes poramboke would not by itself establish that
sub-soil rights were also included in the grant. So
far as sub-soil rights a.re concerned, they ca.n only
pass to the grantee if they a.re conferred as such by
the grant or if it can be inferred from the grant that
sub-soil rights were also included therein. We have
already remarked that the original grant in this case
is not available and we have only the inam fair
register to go by.
There can be no
doubt
therefore
on the
facts
of
this case that
the
learned
Single
Judge
was
right
in
holding that
the grant
of
sub-soil rights to
shrotriemdars is not established. The appeal court
also does not appear to differ from this view
of the learned Single Judge.
Once the conclusion is reached that sub~soil
rig'h.ts were not granted to the shrotriemdars · it
seems to us that the inference is plain that it was
not open to the shrotriemdars to grant any l~ase
of minerals lying under the soil to any one.
Therefore, the leases granted by the shrotriemdars
to the respondents in this case would be of no
legal effect in c~nveying any right to them in the
minerals under the soil. In the circumstances
the respondents cannot put forward the leases in
their favour to claim a mining leases under the
Rules. With respect, we have not been able to
understand how the difficulty which may arise in
practice, on account of the sub-soil rights being in
the Government and the surface rights being in
the shrotriemdars, in the working of the mines
would
make
the
shrotriemdars
shares
in
the sub-soil
rights
and
therefore
entitled
to
grant
a
lease
of
the sub-soil
rights.
Whatever may have been the practice in the past
and howsoever the Government may ·have been
getting over the practical difficulty in the past
would not 'confer any right to the minerals
upon
the
shrotriemda.r
so
as
to
enable
1961
Sta.le of
Anph1a Pmuslt
Y•
Du°"""u Balaraml
Redd'
WanchooJ.
1181
Stai. f
A.tu/''" PraJ1•h
••
BuvVti'u 8aloromi
lied''
-
U'ane"'1o J.
184
SUPREME COURT RE.PORTS [1963]
him to grant a mining lease to any
one.
It follows therefor" that the
mining leases
granted in this case were granted by persons who
he.d no right to the minerals and therefore confer
no rights on the respondents to claim as of right
from the Government that they should be granted
a mining lease under the l:tulea.
In view of the above decision appeal No. l!52
must be allowed and appeal No. 25a must fail.
We th11refore allow appeal No. 252 and setting
aside the order of the appeal court dismiss the writ
petition with costs to the State throughout. Appeal
No. 253 is hereby dismissed but in the circumstances parties will bear their own costs.
0. A. No. 252 of 1958 alkJwed.
0. A. No. 253 of 1958 dismissed.
STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH
v.
KOLLA SREERAMA MURTHY
(B. P. SINHA, c. J., P. B. GAJENDR,AGADKAR, K. N.
WANCnoo, N. RAJA.GOP.ALA AYYANGAR and
T. L. VENKATARAMA AIYA.R, JJ.)
Sales Tax-Delivery order-Endoraement--Properly in
good& paaaea on taking delivery by tho laat endoraet-E//ectOriginal holder of delivery order, if liable to pay salea tazMadras General Sales taz Act, 1939 (Mad. IX of 1939). s. J.
The respondent was a dealer.in gunny hags. He purchased gunnies from the ¥ills on terms of a wri1ten contract
which was on a printed form. The Mills after receiving a
part of purchase price, issued "delivery orders" directing the
delivery of goods as per the contract. Instead of taking deli-.
very himself the respondent endorsed the delivery orders and
these passed through several hands before the ultimate hol·
der of the delivery order presented it to the Mills and obtaiJ'.!e<!
delivery of the gunnies from them.
•