Upload
lamanh
View
213
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
For more than a century f m 1670, the
Vasimdd i family occupied a promhent pos it ion
in Guntur d i s t r i c k , In that year, Vasireddi
Vetrappa Naidu obtained a Isanad! frsa t M King of
Goldonda Abdullah Hussain Kutub Shah, appointing
1 h h a8 Dlshukh and conferring on him hereditary
r tghte over Uandiganr pirragana2 ( i n the present
Krishna d i s t r i c t ) . After Veerappa Naidu's
death i n 1686, the Nandigafna Paragana was
divided among h i s three sons, Choudari Ranaiah,
Raghavabh and Chandra Mouli who resperctively
got the areas of Raghavapuram, Mogallu and
Chintalapadu. Among the descendants of the
three brothers, Ves iredd i Chinna Padmanabhudu,
the only son of Raghavaiah of Mogallu outstripped
hia cousins i n wealth and power, as he obtained
f ran the Golconda rulers, the Paragana of Penu-
ganchiprolu and Betaprolu in ~ o n d a p a l l i circar.
The abwe grants were conf inned by ths, Mughal
emperor, Aurangazeb, the suzerein p e r over the
Golconda Sultanate.
I n 1687 the Golconda Kingdom was over-
thrown by the Mughals and the area became a
Subah o r province of the Mughal empire. A
Subsdar or Governor was appointed t o administer
the n e w province.
In 1710, the Subedar of %can beatowed
on tb Vas i reddi Padmanabhudu, hered i tary r igh t
over large pa r t a€ the Kondavidu Ci tcar (present
Guntur d i s t r i c t ) on the south bank of the Krishna
r iver . ThL he did t o counteract the p e r and
influence d Zamindare, Manikarao and Manuf.
In addition, i n 1725 the Vasireddi family
was declared t o be ~annavars ' and Deshukhs
of 225 vil lages i n the Kondavidu Seema. By t h i s
act, t h e family obtained judicial and police
pawere over these vi l lages . Am s ta ted e a r l i e r ,
China Padmanabhudu who controlled Mogallu,
Panuganchiprolu and Betaprolu obtained the
Kondavidu Circar. But some of tk local chroni-
c la re dispute t h i . f a c t and s t a t e t h a t the des-
cendents of Choudar i Rama iah of Raghavaguram
obtained Kondavidu. Howemr by the year 1760,
the branch of Choudari Ramaiah becam ex t inc t
and its propr t i r r s passed on t o the other two
branchea of the family of Raghavaiah, f a t h e r a€
China Padmanabhudu and Chandra Moul i of Chintala-
padu.
Naganna, one of t h e six sons of China
the bro ths rs . I n 1761, Shah Alam the Mughal
4 emperor i ssued a Sanad through t h e N l z a m , making the f onner the Mannavar of (1) ~olluru,
( 2 ) Ketavaraa, ( 3 ) Bellarnkonda, ( 4 ) Vinukonda,
5 6 ( 5 ) Rayapudi and of Havel i , Mahal -- Ravur
and ~ u c h i p u d i . A f t e r t h e dea th of Naganna,
Nandigama area was taken by Ramanna and Chinta-
pall i area by Jaggaiah, hio sons. Q u a r r e l s
developed k t w e e n Jaggaiah and desecndenta of
Chandra blotaki ( t h i r d son of Veerappa Naidu) . AS
7 a r e s u l t , Jagga iah was murdered i n 1764 . The e l d e s t b ro ther of J a g g a h h , Ramanna, took wsr
t h e management of t b entire estate,
Acharmna, wife of Jeggahh, grlef s t r i k e n
over the t ragedy bmolatsd h e r s e l f on t h e funeral I t wa5
pyre of her husband.Lthe l a s t recorded i n s t a n c e
of @ S a t i s i n t h e G u n t u r d i s t r i c t . The son of
Jaqgaiah and Achamrna wae V e n k a t a b i ~ a M u , who
l a t e r becam w a l l known as R e ja Vas iredd i Venka-
8 t a d r i Naidr .
There are acme c o n f l i c t i n g accounts regard-
ing t h e d a t e of birth of Vas i redd i Venkatadr i
Naidu. k c o r d i a g t o one vers ion , he was born i n
1765, while another vers ion s t a t e s t h a t he was
born i n 1767. R.punn& the brother ct Jaggaiah
and e l d e r uncle of Venkatadr i Naidu besides
exerc i s ing hiti a u t h o r i t y over Nandigama a l s o
took wer C h i n t a p a l l i a f t e r t h e death of Jaggaiah.
Ramkana i n c u r m d t h e d i s p l e a s u r e of Basa la t Jug,
9 o w of the m i x son8 of t h e Nizaa-Ul-Mulk .
T M Guntnr C i r c a r was under t h e Control of
Basa la t Jung s i n c e 1761. He was supported by t h e
French, However, i n 1777, t h e d i f f erenees bet-
ween Raaranna and Basalat Jung were patched up.
But in the next year , i n 1778, Ramanna died when
Vcnkatadri Naidu was only 17 years oldL0. Thus
i n 1778, Venkatadri Naidu inherited the vast
estate8 held by the different brancbs of the
Vas i rddi f w i l y both in Nandigam and Kondavidu
Paraganaa (present Krishna and G u n t u r d i s t r ic t s )
The area now known as the Guntur d i s t r i c t
consieted of five Paraganas, 25 nootaha811 and
868 villages, The land tax was collected by the
four Zamindare of Vas ireddi, Wanur, Manikarao
an8 Malrrju farailicls, who exercised judicial
pawere also. As the jurisdiction and the powers
of the Zamindarai was not clearly defined, t h q
retained private forces and posed a threat to the
suzerein power, ti11 1788 when the d i s t r i c t came
under the control of the East India Cmwny.
~ a s i r e d d i Venkatadri NaFdu inherited an
es ta te consisting of 551 villages. Among them
333 were in the Guntur d i s t r i c t and the remaining
218 villages in Krishna d i s t r i c t * H e kept a
large armed force consisting of cavalry and
elephants. eorgs.12 Venkatadri Naidu imprinoned
h i s cousins Papaiah and Chandra Mouli a t
Chintapalli , aa they claimed a share i n the
family es ta te . Venkatadri Naidu t r i ed t o con-
sol ida te h i s power by befriending the suzerein
authority. As already noted Venkatadtits fa ther
Ramanna c a m t o terms with uasalat Jung. Under
the tenns of the t rea ty of 12th November 1766
between the Nizam and the East Indla Company,
the Guntur Circar (Murtu janagar) was t o be ceded
t o the East India Company a f t e r the death of
Basalat Jung. Though Rasalat JUng died in 1782,
it L only 1788, the East India Company could
get possession of Guntur Circar. During the
i n t e r i m period of six years following t h e death
of Basalat Jung i n 1782 t o the formal t ransfer
of Guntur t o the East India Company in 1788 the
aff a k e of Guntur was looked in to by Saif Jung, the
representative of the Nizam and Masul ipatam
on behalf of the East India Compny
Taking advantage of the confuerian following the
death of Basalat Jung, Venkatadri Naidu increased
hi8 p e r by encroaching on many vi l lager around
hia e s t a t e , The Maeulipatam council brought
the a c t i v i t i e s of Venkatadri Naidu t o the not k e
of t h e Madras Government and suggested t o it
t o take immediate s t e p t o curb the p a r of
Venkatadri Naidu. But the Madras gwernment
could do nothing In this regard as t h e pcnrer of
the East India Company Was not yet consolidated
i n the d i s t r i c t .
Change of Sovereignty over Guntur c i r c a r
f ram the N h a m t o the East India Company was
effected smoothly and without any disturbance.
This important po l i t i ca l change was intimated t o
the local Zamindars who were a l l w e d t o continue
i n their poeeessione and they were assured by the
Company t h a t they w i l l be treated l ike the other
Zamindars i n the Northern districts1? After taking
over t h e control cd G u n t u r Circar, t he Company
appointed an o f f i c i a l known as Collector t o
c ~ l l e e t the rwenue. Robert Hughes was appoin-
ted as the f irst co l lector15. Besides salary,
he was paid commission of 5% on the revenue col-
lected subjected t o the maximurn of BOO0 ~ a g s ~ ~ ,
Vasireddi Venkatadri Naidu whose authority
over h i s Zamindari r a t i f i ed by the company faced
twin problems d payment of agreed opeshcurho
o r revenue t o the Ccinpany and disputes regard-
ing cer ta iu vi l lages of his Zamindari in the
south and north. In the south the dispute rela-
ted t o a v i l l age called Pandi l lapal l i near
Ongole which was controlled by the nawab of
Carnatfc* The second dispute in the north was
with the Zamindar of Nuzvid. As f o r the d ie - was
pute regarding Pandil l a p a l l i L concerned, it
centred round the r ight of the people of Pandilla-
p a l l i v i l lage t o graze t h e i r c a t t l e in t h e Nana-
p l l i v i l l e g e area. The dispute a row since
the boundary p i l l e r s which separated Pandil l a p a l l i
and Nanapalli were destroyed. The Fau jdar
of the Carnatic nswab did not allow the villa-
gers of NanapalEi t o graze the i r ca t t le i n the
disputed area. So Vasireddi Venkatadri Naidu
brought this matter t o the notice of tht Board
of Revenue a t Madras. The Board wanted t o
investigate the matter by the Collector of Guntur.
The nawab of Carnatic deputed one of hia off i-
ciala Syod nahunarad Khan t o investigate. the
matter, But soon Khan vamr replaced by another
off i c t l neer Mahr~lmrd Bauker, The C~lleetOr
a f te r investigation f e l t that the disputed land
17 belongs t o Nanapalli . The dispute with Nuz ivid Zamindar concerned
over Kollipara, a small island in the Krishna
rivet. Vmkatadri Naidu wanted to s e t t l e the
diepute through arbitration. B u t there were
legal Impediments since the concerned island
war attached by the Compony for the esttlsment of
revenue by the ~ u z i v i d ~ a m i n d a r l ~ .
The main interest of the suzerein power was
the collect ion of revenue on lands c u l t h a t e d ,
The settlement of the revenue war on t h e basis
of standing c r o p before harvest, The annual
settlements were known as Jumabundy. under
Nizm'S management, Guntur was not regarded a6
rwsnue yielding area eince the inhabitants were
poor and the cul t lva t lon was not developed. After
the area cam under the control of the Company,
the Collectorr reviewed t h e position and suges-
t e d many mcsasuree t o improve cul t iva t ion and
revenue co l l ec t ion. Among the measures suggested
were the following :
(1) The Zamindars are t o be allowed to keep
their eatatas or Jagirar.
( 2 ) To reduce their expenditure, they were
to ef fec t economy i n t h e k establishment known as
IS ibbuadi' ,
( 3 ) The r y o t s were t o k given loans c a l l e d
' takkavi ' t o commence t h e c u l t i v a t i o n .
( 4 1 The C o l l e c t o r s have t o make an estimate
of the revenues (Jumma) l i k e l y t o be realbed,
The low c o l l e c t i o n a€ the Summa r e s u l t e d i n
paving the way for t h e Amani manageamt o r the
d i r e c t mdnagement of t h e Company government. 19
Fram t h e above suggest ions , it is ev iden t t h a t
t h e company dic ided t o involve i t s e l f mom
d i r e c t l y i n tha c o l l e c t i o n of revenue overlooking
t h e Zamindars. As the Company ie i n t e r e s t e d i n
inc reas ing i t 8 revenue, it had a .take i n t h e
we l fa re of the c u l t i v a t o r s a l s o . T b t is vhy it
wanted t o advance loans t o t h e c u l t i v a t o r s to
enab le them to commence t h e i r c u l t i v a t i o n .
The d i r e c t involvement of t h e Company w i t h
the peasants , chal lenged not only the e c o n m i c
mar of the Zamindars w e r t h e c u l t i v a t o r a ,
but a l e e t he i r aocla11 s tanding among t h e people
i n general . The supremcy of thQ Company and
the subordination of t h e Zamindars t o it is
demonstrated 80 e f f e c t i v e l y t h a t t h e Zamindua
who wre a c c u t m e d t o r u l e aa t h e l o c a l chief-
t a i n s t r i e d t o r e a s s e r t thek : p e r . Th is in-
ev i tab ly led t o many c o n f l i c t s between t h e company
and t h e Zamindars.
Venkatadri Naidu, who was accustomed t o
behave a s t h e l e a l overlord, f e l t h i s authori ty
and poei t ion humiliated by the Company and soon
ha c a m i n t o c l a s h with t h e Company. The f i n a l
c l a s h of Venkatadri Naidu with the Company was
regarding payments of a r reara of peshcush of
Nandigwa. Ths Company's Council a t Maauli-
patam asked Venkatadri Naidu t o a p p a r i n person
t o o f f e r explanation. Venkatadri Naidu t r i a d t o
a s s e r t h i s po6ition t h a t he w i l l not appear i n
person bu t through h i s vakeel a s it was t h e
prevai l ing prac t ice . Fur ther hFo presence is
needed a t Chin tapa l l i where t h e c u l t i v a t i o n
operations were in progress. I t is thus evi-
dent t h a t os tens ib le reason f o r Venkatadri
Naidu'e r e f u s a l t o a t t end be£ ore Masulipatern
Council is about his s o c i a l standing among the
people of his Zamindari and a l s o t o demonstrate
t o t h e Company, the ex ten t of h i e au thor i ty .
The Company on the advice of t h e Col lec tor
dispensed with t h e personal attendance of the
Zamindar an it did not want t o make an issue
of a simple matter espec ia l ly when its au thor i ty
ia not f u l l y consol idated in its newly acquired
area?' The Company however decided t o show t o
t h e Zarnindars t h a t they a r e no longer t h a t power-
f u l and they depended f o r t h e i r exis tence on t h e
mercy of t h e Company. Hence t h e C o l l a t o r s were
ins t ruc ted t o inves t iga te t h e ex ten t of lands
possessed by t h e Zarnindars and various 'ruarrms*
o r c o l l e c t i o n s made by them from t h e people. The
Campany decided t o c u t t h e Zamindars t o s i z e by
issuing them new 'Sanader ' def ining t h e i r exact
position and powers and ob lka t ions t o the
Company. T M Zamindars were made to understand
tha t a l l the decisions o£ the Board d Revenue
are f inal and binding. From the foregoing, it
is evident tha t with the advent of Company's
rule over Guntu r , the position of the Zamindarlr
has deterkrated t o such an extent tha t they
depended far t h e i r existence on the mercy of
the Company. They dared not t o defy the Con)-
pany, as they used t o do under the previoue dis-
penaat ion.
Regarding Chintapal li, Venkatadri Naidu
based hir claim on the Sanadr granted , to h is
ancestor by Shah Alam, the Mughal emperor. As
per the Sanad, the Vasireddi family was allowed
cer ta in privileges l ike the collection, what
was known as @oaratam@ and a l so allowed t o
poesees tm 'jagir9 villagee. These r ights
were known as 'nannavari Right.'. However the
Vasireddi family lost these privileges by
default and the same vere exercised by another
Zamindari f amily of Man ikarao. 21 Venkatadri
appealed t o the Company t o res tore h i s r ights
on Chintapall i and agreed t o pay the Company
60,000 Pagodas far renting Chintapalli. The
Company referrcad the matter of Chintapall i t o
P Committee called lGuntur ~ o w n i t t ~ l ~ ' ~ . he
Company r e a l b e d tha t due t o the duplicity of
the v i l lapa accountants known as 'Karaname ' much of the revenue due t o it was defrauded by
the Zamindars. The Zamindar of ch in tapa l l i
r e a l b i a g that hie e s t a t e would be confiscated
agreed t o make good the loss of revenue by the
Company. However one of the members of the
Guntur Committee, cocarane, brought t o the not ice
of the Board of Revenue the other ac t iv i t i e s
of the Zamindar who secretly instigated bandits
l ike Chinno Papa Naik and Amma Naik t o defy
the Company. 2 3
A8 t h e Company was y e t t o c o n s o l i d a t e its
p e r i n t h e d i s t r i c t , Venkatadr i Naidu t r i e d
t o r e a s s e r t Ria power by dominating t h e o t h e r
Zamindars in t h e d i s t r i c t and by defy lng the
Haaulipatam Council , which t r i e d t o c u r b his
pawer, Sane mea\bars of t h e Counci l even f e l t
t h a t t h e best way t o buy of f VenkatadrL le by
p u t t i n g him in-charge of t h e t e r r i t o r i e s of
V inukonda and B e 1 I amkonda. But t h e sugges t ion
was n o t g iven any s e r i o u s c o n s i d e r a t i o n and
t h e Company a s s e r t e d its power o v e r V a s i r e d d i
family.
The decade 1790-1800 proved t o be very
d i r a s t r o u s due t o t h e cont inuous f a i l u r e of t h e
monsoon f o r t e n years . A s a r e s u l t s e v e r e
famine s t a l k e d wer t h e d i s t r i c t r e s u l t i n g i n
unprecedented dea ths and devas ta t ion . The 2 4
d i s t r i c t was almast on the br ink of r u i n . Venkatadr i Naidu t r i e d t o e x p l o i t t h e s i t u a t i o n
t o h i s advantage. when t h e o t h e r Zamindars of
the d i s t r i c t were unable t o pay the i r peehcush
t o the Cosrpany, he came forward t o c lear off
two thirds of hi# arrears t o the Cmpany fo r
the l a s t asvan years. I n addition, he c a m
forward to pay the Company 3.1 5 l a m of Pago-
das for three years, Jf he were t o be given f u l l
charge a€ the d b t r i c t . The Masulipatam Council
endoreed the proposal of Venkatadri but the
Board of Revealue rejected the proposal out-
righte2' Fram the above, it ia evident tha t
Vasireddi f w i l y amassed huge wealth i n the
previous year8 obviously by unfair means. I t
t r i e d t o u t i l i s e the wealth t o further its
influence a t r time h e n the Company was in
f inancia1 s t r a i t s and i t8 pol i t ical power was
in i t8 infancy i n the d i s t r i c t . But the ~ o a r d
of Revenue correctly saw through the game of
Vasireddi family and rejected hi8 offer. The
Company which ha6 embarked upon axpanaion of
its empire through out the Country knw how
t o handle local chieftains who had no
comprehension of the exist ing po l i t i ca l r ea l i t i e s .
The Vraireddi family, hawever, had no idea
tha t it ir dealing with a power£ ul Company, whose
empire spreadwer dif ferent parts of the country,
I t f e l t tha t the Company in another inept Local
power l ike the Nham of Hyderabad. The Company
decided t o c a l l off the bluff of Venkatadri and
show him h i s r ea l p i t i o n . H e waer therafore
ordered t o relcraee h i s couains whom hi? kept under
detention a t Chintapall i , Further he was asked
t o restore t o them t h e i r lands and other valuables,
The Masulipatam Council decided t o investigate
into the lff airs of Vaaireddi family, but before
it could proceed on its work, the Board of
Revenue decided t o abolish the Masulipatam Coun-
c i l and ent rus t it$ work t o the collectors con-
cerned. Here it may be s ta ted tha t the Masuli-
patam council vas a supervisory body over the
Collactora of the Northern Circara, A£ t e r i t5
aboli t ion the Collectors were di rec t ly control led
by the Board of Revenue a t Madras.
Var i r edd i Venkatadri Naidu nov r e a l b e d
h l e t u r e p i t i o n vis-a-vis t h e c a p a n y . He
decided ~ o t t o s t a y a t Chin tapal l i and sh i f t ed
t o Guntur. At Guntur a l s o he was kept under
survei l lance. H e therefore declded t o with-
draw t o AWavatL on the banks af Krishna
r i v e r , where he b u i l t a very big and beaut i fu l
palace by desecrating the g rea t Buddhist Stupa 26
b u i l t by the Satavahana emperors nearly 2000
years ago. Fwrhaps Venkatadri d id not know the
c u l t u r a l worth of t he world famous Buddhist
S t u p a t Amaravati. By h i s ignorant a c t s of
Vandal l a m Venkatadri hae done g r e a t e s t dieser-
vice t o the country, I t ie l e f t t o t he a l i e n
B r i t i s h ru l e r s t o preserve t h e remaining relics
of t h i s wonderful Stupa in London museum.
Af ter t h e abol i t ion of Masulipatam Council
George Andrew wafa appointed as the Col lec tor of
Guntur i n March 1794. The Board of Revenue
depends on t h e Collector f o r the c o l l e c t ion of
revenue f rcm the d i s t r i c t . Further he provides
information of the d i s t r i c t relat ing t o its
population, resources, and i r r iga t ional works.
The annual reports of the Collectors are tran8-
rnitted by the Board of Revenue t o the Court of
Dirfxtorr a t London. Thus through its local
agent 'Collector' , the Company I s Directors
have overview of the e n t i r e area under the
occupation of the Company. The Collector is
the Kingpin of the administration of the d i s -
trict. 2 7
After the aboli t ion of the Masulipataar
Council, the Collector of Guntur began t o
exercise control over the Zamindars undef hia
jurisdiction, Naturally the a f f a i r s of vas i r e d d i
family a l so came under the scrutiny of the Collec-
tor . In 1801, Venkatadri was forced t o return
t o hie cousin, Chandra ~ o u l i , the e s t a t e known
a8 Muktyala on the l e f t bank of the r ive r Krishna.
Chandra Mouli, one of the descendents of Veerappa
Naidu, the founder of the Vasireddi zamindar i
got i n addit ion of Muktyala, the e s t a t e of
Chintalagedu also, through a decree of the law
court. Chandra Mouli was succeeded by his
son Bhavani Mukteswara Prasad . 28 From the
foregoing, it 161 evident t h a t the colnpany could
reduce the p e r of Venkatadri and succeeded
i n cmat ing another cent re of power a t Muktyala.
Naturally, the Muktyala Zamindar who oved his
position t o the Company remained loyal t o it.
But Venkatadri was not a man t o give away
h i s position and p w e r so eas i ly . So he
t r h d t o extend h i s paver southwards by purchas-
ing the e s t a t e s of the o ther Zamindars who
f a i l e d t o pay t o the Company t h e i r peshcush.
Venkatadri acquired area8 1 ike Vang ipuram,
Kollur, Vinukonda which were auctioned by t h e
Company when the Zamindars of Repalle, V inukonda
could ~ o t pay t h e i r a r rears d revenue t o the
Company. Further he purchased the e s t a t e s near
nasulipatam and Rajahmundry also. He wino
prompt i n payment of pshcush due t o the Company
and gave no chance t o the Compny t o attach
tha villapar, fo r the non-payment of pehcuah.
O n one occasion, vhen he s e t out on pil-
grimage t o Benares, Venkatadri Naidu paid the
peshcush i n advance and deposited with the
Bankers rupees two lakhs for t h i s purpose.
However, there was an instance, when Vangi-
puram was attached by the Collector with the
approval of the Board as Venkatadri failed to
pay the peshcueh. 2 9
Venkatadri Naidu became a local legend
unlike other Zamindars of the d i s t r i c t . He
lived in s ty le i n h i s palaces bui l t a t places
l ike Amaravati and Chebrole. Though he des-
crated the Amaravati Stupa for i t a marble, not
knowing its his tor ical and cultural worth,
Venkatadri Naidu renovated ancient temples a t
Mangalagiri and bui l t its 'Gali Gopuram' . Further i n l a t e r years he became very pioue and
religious. H e was smitten uith remorse for.
murdering in h i s youth about 150 people belony-
ing t o Chenchu tribe. H i s pious nature and
g i f t s t o the poor and needy are remembered
even today. 30
while on pilgrimages t o Tirupati and
Ramaswaram, Venkatadri Naidu visited Madras
and called on the Governor General Moira, with-
ou t taking the permiss ion from the Governor of
Madras. For th i s breach of protocol, Venkatadri
Naidu was censured by the Madras Government. 3 1
Venkatadri Naidu went on pilgrimage t o
Benaras and the Company showed him the necessary
courtesy by honouring his b i l l s a t Benaras and
other places. 32 H e was also honoured by ~ o r d
C l i v ~ a t Calcutta. Beside., the Nizam of
Hyderabad conferred on Venkatadri the
d i s t i n c t i o n of 'Marine S u l t a r a f o r g e t t i n g r i d cb
t h e menace of the d a c o i t s on the highways of
Gunt ur, 3 3
Venkatadr i Naidu had no c h i l d oE his own.
So h e adopted two boys namely Jagannadha Babu,
son of Chandra Houl i and Ramanadha Babu son of
Naganna a l h 8 Papaiah i n 1798 and 1806 reo-
ptct ively . Venkatadr i d iv ided t h e p roper t ies
between t h e two adopted sons with t h e i r mutual
consen t and t h e same was int imated t o t h e
C o l l e c t o r of Guntur i n A p r i l 1816. I n J u l y
t h e Government r a t if l e d t h e adopt ions and
d i v i s i o n of properties. Venkatadr i Naidu d ied
on 17 August 1816.
Venkatadr i Naidu is unique among t h e Zamin-
d a r s of Guntur. I n s t e a d of squandering away
the p r o p e r t i e s i n h e r i t e d , h e increased h i s ,
e s t a t e s by purchasing t h o s e aE the f e l l m Zamin-
dara whome land. were auc t ioned by t h e Company
f o r the default a€ the payment of peshcush.
Further, rea l i r ing the authority and the power
of the Campany, he war prompt in the paynrant
of peshcush, lest the l a t t e r may f ind an
excurre t o eequeetrate h ie estate.. Hie
e s t a t e conrioted of 5 5 1 vi l lages , several
palacea and other valuables whose t o t a l value
was about 55 lakhr of rupees. Of the vil lages,
Jagannodha Babu was given 314 i n an area known
as 'Umanaheswara Puram o r Palm' while
Rananadha Babu wars given 237 vi l lages of
lChatmukha Palem ' in the Chebrolu port ion of
the es ta te .
The two adopted sons of Venkatadri Naldu
Jrqalpnrdhr Brbu rli.8 Pedr Babu and Ramanadha
Babw, a l h r China Babu agreed t o abide by the
division of the es ta te made by t h e i r fa ther .
The provisions of the division were incorporated
i n a 8.4 of agreement known as (Vlbhaga Patri-
kalu' . As noted ea r l i e r , the deed was executed
by Venkatadrl with the consent of h i s sons,
H e allowed h i s sons t o take part in the a f f a i r s
of the Zaslindari t o gain expr ience in revenw
transactions with the Company. The two devans
of Venkatadri, Sabnavk Anantarao and Po t tu r i
Kalidas were a l l m a t o continue in service,
the f o r w r looked a f t e r the a f f a i r s of Jagannadha
Babu and the l a t t e r t h a t of Ramanadha Babu.
These ~erar thar~~ m a n e a f t e r the death of
Venkatadri exploiting the inexperience of t h e i r
mew masters, involved them in endless l i t i ga t ion
and thereby etnrkhed themselves and ruined the
Vaaireddi family in the course of next t h M y
years.
Uma Mahervara Palem and Chaturmukha Palem
contained one hundred vi l lages known as
'Dh.wvahi ' . M the term denotes, these v i l lages
am earmarkad f o r the purpose8 of chari ty. As
noted e a r l i e r t h e l a t e Zamindar wae r e l i g i o u s l y
incl ined and made g i f t s t o temples and learned
Brahmins. O f t h e hundred 4Dh.rrurvahi V i l4u ' ,
64 were s i t u a t e d i n Uma Mahesvara Puram and t h e
rest i n Chaturmukha palem. The Board of Revenue
c l a r i f i e d t h a t it Ls upto the new Zamindars t o
t r e a t t h e v i l l a g e s as such and f u l f i l t h e inten-
t i o n s of t h e l a t e Zarnindar Venkatadri . As f a r
as t h e Company is concerned, it makes no d i s -
t i n c t ion between the80 v i l lages and o ths ro f o r
t h e purpose of assessment and c o l l e c t i o n of rwe-
nue.
Soon a f t e r t h e dea th of Venkatadri , h i s
f i r s t adopted son Jagannadha Babu chal lenged t h e
v a l i d i t y of t h e second adopt ion by h i s l a t e f a t h e r
and f e l t t h a t Ramanadha Babu, t h e second adopted
son being a minor has no c la im over t h e Zamindari
and a l s o quest ioned t h e l e g a l i t y ct: t h e W i l l
executed by hir l a t e f a t h e r d iv id ing t h e Zamindari
b e t w e n hi# two adopted 8ons. H e made a repre-
s e n t a t i o n t o t h e C o l l e c t o r of Guntur Thackeray t o
recognise him (Jagannadha Babul a s the only legal
h e i r of l a t e Venkatadri NaMu and set as ide the
W i l l of h l s f a the r giving a share of the e s t a t e
t o Ramanadha Babu. The Collector a d v i ~ e d
Jagannadha Babu t o ge t the matter s e t t l e d in the
Court of Law. I t is evident tha t the Collector
ir keen on get t ing the dispute resolved aoon,
so t h a t t h e revenue due t o the government may
not be locked up till the case i s se t t l ed . 3 5
I n ne t tere of diaputed suecession t o the
Zamindaris, the Collector is emgowered under
Regulation 111 of 1802 t o appoint a manager t o
look a f t e r t h e a f f a i t s of the Zamindari, with
the consent of a l l the claimante t o the zamindari,
If any claimant refuses t o give h la consent, t h e
Collector is marpowered under clause V of the
Regulation t o mwe t o the Court t o appolnt an
administrator f o r the Zamindari till the dispute
ie s e t t l e d , The Collector of Guntur, a f t e r
obtaining the consent of the Board of Revenue,
decided t o invoke the Provisions of Regulation 111
and bring the Zamindari under the Court of Wards
till the issue of adoption is legally set t lad .
Jagannadha Babu in his peti t ion t o the
Collector questioned the authority of #e Board
of Revenue t o bring the Zamindari under the Court
of Wards and threatened t o sue the collector
if he acta on the instructions of the Board. The
other party, namely Ramanadha Babu, a lso made a
representation t o the government t o recognise
h i s clalias. The government however f e l t that
there is no n e d t o act on that peti t ion. 36
Thus it is evident that the a£ £ a i r s of the
Vae ireddi Zamindari were embroiled in legal
wrangles due t o the lack aE foresight on the part and
of Venkatadrq machinat ions of the Desastha
Dewans , who vere notorious f o r involving the ir
masters i n l i t igat ion. As f a r as the Company ia
concerned it L not bothered about any of the
claiman'te. I t e sole interest is t o safeguard
i t s revenue.
A s Jagannadha Babu moved t o the Court In
January 1817 t o s e t aside the order of the Board
of Rwenue t o bring the Zamindari under Court of
Wards, the governmnt authorlsed the Collector t o
defend the action of the Board as publlc tenterest
1 it igat ion.
The governnrrnt wanted the Court t o appoint
an administrator for the Zamindarl since a large
amount of revenue due t o the government f ran the
Zamindari was held up due t o the l i t igat ion, Before
movin;l t o the Court f o r the appointment d admini-
s t ra to r fo r the Zamindari, the Collector attached
81 villages in Urna Mahesvara Puram and 127 villages
in chatunnukha Puram f o r the arrear dues t o the
government, The case of Jagannadha Babu against
the government was dismissed on 10. May 1817?~
while Jagannadha Babu was busy in sending
representations and f i l i n g su i t s i n the courts
t o get control of the ent i re es ta te , Ramanadha
Babu waa not s i l en t . He too followed the sam
l ine of action. He and hi8 mother and guardian
Parvatanma f iled in the Prwincia l Court of
Appeal, Masulipatam, a miace1 laneous pet it ion
s ta t ing tha t the division of the e s t a t e along with
other valuables betwen hirn and his brother was
made on 26th February 1816 on the occasion of
S ivara t r i f ee t Lval, in the presence of learned
Pandits a t Ainareswara temple of Amaravati. They
rebutted the contention of Jagannadha Babu t h a t
the second adoption is not valid by quoting from
the c i v i l code then in vogue which a1 lowed the
Zamindars t o adopt as many sons as they like. 38
Further he claimed that he was adopted as per the
law and the W i l l executed by h i s adopted f a t h e r
before hi6 death has been accepted by h i s brother
(Jagannadha Babu) a l ro I This waa evident from the
letters writ ten by Jagannadha Babu t o Venkatadri
Naidu on 16 Septenbcr 1812. The l e t t e r was l e n t
t o the Collector, Guntur by Venkatadri Naidu on
30 September 1812 and the same was acknowledged on
10 October 1812. He also pointed out t h a t on
26 Febaruary, 1814, Jagannadha Babu sent another
l e t t e r t o Venkatadri Naidu s ta t ing t h a t as he
becar a major he may be allowed t o manage h i s
share of the es t a t e and a lso promised tha t i f he
f a i l s t o manage hle share of the e s t a t e succes-
sful ly , he w i l l f o r f i e t h i e claim., Ramanma
Babu a lso mads a similar request t o h i s father.
Both the l e t t e r 8 were sent by Venkatadri t o the
Collector i n March 1814, Ramanadha Babu fur ther
c l a M d tha t a l l the deeds were reqistered in the
Z i l l ah Court of Guntur on 7 May 1816. Ramanadha
Babu brought t o the notice of the Court tha t the
Collector had attached 208 village8 (127 of
Ramanadha Babu and 81 of Jagannadha Babu) as they
fa i l ed t o pay the peshcush.
Ramanadha Babu tried t o strengthen h L
claim by bringing t o the notice of the Court,
the f ac t that Jagannadha Babu came forward t o
purchase 127 villages in Chatumukha Palm
portion oh the Zamindari which were attached by
the governraent for the default of revenue payment
by the petitioner, He further pointed out that
the offer of Jagannadha Babu was turned down by
the Board of Revenue on 12 October 1816. 39
Stating these facts, Ramanadha Babu and his mother
Parvatdmma prayed the Court to detclare Ramanadha
Babu and Jagannadha Babu as the two legal adop
ted son@ of Venkatudri and divide hirr estate
according t o h i s Will.
The Court however rejected the case of
Ramanadha Babu on technical grounds, stating that .
the original case was between Jagannadha Babu and
the government and hence Ramanadha Babu has no
locus sta& i n the matter. 40
Undaunted by t h i s reverse, Ramanadha Babu
and hi8 mother Parvathamma sent representetinns
t o the Board of Revenue reiterating Ramanadha
Babu's claims t o the Zamindari."
The Board received the peti t ions of
Ramanadha Babu and Parvathamma but it d i d not
fiend any orders t o the Collector f o r staying the
decree of the Provincial Court. The Board was
more interested in the collections of arrears fran
the Vaa i r~dd i Zamindari than in the succession
disputes. Company ' 8 reluctance t o embroil i t se l f
in the succession disputes had an adverse effect
on the economy of the district. The claimants
t o the estate8 found no time or money t o improve
t h e i t land8 ia dispute. 42 A@ a r seu l t most of the
lands remined fallow and no improvements were made
t o i r r igat ional works. No wonder one of the great
famines of the 19th century took place in Guntur
d i s t r i c t and it resulted in the deaths and mlgra-
t ion of more than 50 percent of its population.
Jagannadhil Babu too made representation t o
the Board of Revenue s ta t ing that the position of
the ryots would be bet ter if the e n t i r e e s t a t e
fs placed under hie management. He promised t o
pay the pesheurh due8 as soon as he was given the
possession of h i r division. 4 3
The apptal of Ramanadha Babu t o the Provin-
cial Court of Appsal dragged on f o r several yeare.
On 16 June, 1824 the court d i smi s sed the appeal,
Ramanadha Babu then appealed t o the Sadar Court
a t ~ a d r a r . ~ ~ On 28 February 1825, Jagannrdhe
Babu died leaving behind two widow8 and an adopted
child, His es ta tes of Nandigama, Inagoodroo and
Ackalamd were taken over by the Collector f o r
sat isfact ion of the revenue due ta the Company, 4 5
After the death of Jagannadha Babu, h i s two
widows Acham and Rangamma and the adopted son
Lakehmigathi involved themselves in l i t i ga t ion over
the properties. Ramanadha Babu, the old claimant
fished i n the troubled waters of Jagannadha
Babu ' 8 f tu~unily. 46
Two conf lk t ing W i l l r r , suppohied t o have
been executed by Jagannadha Babu few d a ~ b e f o r e
h i s death were brought t o light. The f i r s t W i l l
was i n favour of h t second wife Rangam and
Ramanadha Babu and the second was in favour of
h i s f h a t wife Achamma. 'In the f &at W i l l
Pas upathi Seshaiah, Potturi Nagesvararao and
Go1 lapudi Psdda Papaiah af f ixed the ir s ignaturss
as witnsseer. The W i l l dated 26 February 1825
stated tha t Jagannadha Babu was 8ick f o r the
l a s t two months and as he had l i t t le hope of sur-
vival, he out of h i s f r e e w i l l gave t o h i s second
wife Rangamma, Rayapudi and Nutakki of chinta-
p a l l i ,
Another interesting f a c t of the W i l l was
the bequest t o Ramanadha Babu, h i s houses, gardens
and other properties. This bequest was intriguing
61 ince the two brothers were involved in l i t igat ion
ever since the death of Venkatadri a d several
case8 involving the brothers were pending i n
Courts of Law.
The second M i l l authoriaed Achamma t o
adopt a boy of her choice as son. Further she
was directed t o pay 100 Pags t o Rangamma ar
a1 lcwance . 47
while the two widows of Jagannadhe Babu
stalking their claims, based on W i l l 6 , Ramanadha
Babu made a representation t o the Collector of
Guntur, Whish on 1 March 1825, stat ing that , if
he were t o be made the hei r t o the whole ~ a s i r e d d i
estate, he ia prepared t o pay a l l the amounts due
t o the government from the estates.
Achama also made a representation t o the
Board of Revenue about her r ight t o the ent i re
estate. She stated that the W i l l , faoouririg
Ramanadha Babu and Rangamma was not genuine,
The succession of disputes ob Vas ircddi
family were so complicated that the varioue
subordinate courts gave conf 1 i c t ing judgements.
I t vas only in 1832, the Provincial Court ( the
Predecessor of High court) gave its verdict.
The Court re jgcted the adoption of Lakshmipathi
by Jagannadha Babu while that of Ramanadha Babu
by Venkatadri was upheld. The widows of
Jagannadha Babu, Achamma and Rangamrna were
a1 lowtsd monthly maintenance a1 lwance. Though t h e
c l a h of Ramanadha Babu as one of the adopted
sons of Venkatadri was vindicated, still there
were many other cases connected with Za~nindari
pending in different courtn. T t is only i n 1842,
Ramanadha Babu wee given the charge of h i s estdteu.
After taking possession of the estate, Rantanadha
Babu did not evince any in teres t t o imprbve his
land8 and the condition of hie tenants. He squan-
dered hiss wealth in ostentatious 1 iving . Meanwh i l e ,
the two widow8 of Jagannadha Babu appealed t o
the Privy Council against the decision of the
Provincial Court upholding the adoption of Rema-
nadha Babu, The Privy Council s e t aside the
decision of the Provincial Court and declared
tha t the adoption of Lakshmipathi by Jagannadha
Babu was valid. There upon, Lakshmipathi appealed
t o the gwerment t o make over t o him the posses-
sion of the e r t a t e . But the government declined
h i s request and allowed him an allowance of Rs.
1000/- a month. Ramanadha Babu was given a
cornpaasionate allowance of R s , 300/- a mobth.
A£ t e r the death of ~akslunipathi, h i s allowance
was continued t o hiB adopted oon Vasireddi Venka-
t a Narasbha Naidu.
Ramanadha Babu died in 1859, leaving a
widow and two sons, An a1 lawance of R s , 150/-
a month wae paid fo r some period t o the widow and
an allowance of Ro, 300/- a m a t h , was paid t o the
two sons Dataatadha ~ a i d u and Siva Prasada Naidu
who resided a t hmaravati. 48
Thus fo r nearly one hundred years the
Vasireddi f arnily exerted its influence i n G u n t u r
d i s t r i c t . Beside8 Vas ireddi family , there
were other Zamindaris l ike Manur, and Manikarao,
which were more anc Lent than the Vas ireddi
family which was inducted into the d i s t r i c t as
a counterpoise t o the Manikarao and Manur
families, From its humble origin, the Vasirecldi
family acquired such power and popularity during
the time af Venkatadri ~ a i d u that it t r i ed t o
defy thc, N i z a m and the East India Company. Venka-
t a d r i Naidu had good grasp of the po l i t i ca l
r e a l i t i e s of the time. He knew tha t the Company
tolerated the Zamindars as long as they paid
peshcush t o the government. That is why, he took
care not t o default the! payment of peshcush due
t o the Company. H e a l so earned the goodwill of
the people by his acts d charity, The only error
he committed war the adoption of two sons and his
f a i t h i n the allegiance of h i s Descretha kwana
towards the f w i l y . By adopting two sons, he
involved hir, family i n endless l i t i g a t i o n
which f ina l ly brought ruin and disgrace t o the
i l lus t r ious family. His f a i t h in the Desastha
Brahmin Dewans is inexplicable. These Desas-
thas vho migrated from Maharashtra have no stake
i n the wellbeing of the fcl~niliea they served.
They exploited the yul! i b i l i t y of t h e i r masters
t o fu r the r their economic prospects. By their
intr igues, the Desastha Dewans succeeded in
ruining the Vas i reddi family .
Jagannadha Babu borrowed money from the
bankers (Sahukars) a t hiqh in teres t t o f b h t his
many cases in the Court of L,aw, Gold, s i l v e r
and copper used in the coverings of the p i l l e r s
and roof of the palace a t Amaravati was sold t o
pay off the debta. With i n two year8 of inheri-
tancy, a huge fortune of 50 lakhe of rupees f rm
h i s f a the r wag los t and Jagannadha Babu became
Poor * Munro on h i s v i s i t t o Guntur i n December
1822 as t h e Governor of Madras no t i ced t h e s o r r y
s t a t e of Vas i r edd i fami ly . But he cou ld do
nothing as members of f ami ly were involved riot
i n one bu t many e a s e s of 1 i t i g a t i o n . The E a s t
I n d i a Company ao noted e a r l i e r hoodwinked a t these
l i t i g a t i o n s a s it s u i t e d its purpose eminently.
F i r s t l y by fnvolving thernsleves i n l i t i g a t i o n ,
t h e f a m i l y could o f f e r no cha l l enge t o t h e autho-
r i t y of t h e C a p a n y as it d i d t o t h e a u t h o r i t y
of t h e N i z a m f e w decades ago, secondly , t h e
Company got an oppor tun i ty t o c o n f i s c a t e t h e l ands
of t h e f ami ly on t h e ground of d e f a u l t of p a h c u s h .
From the above, it is e v i d e n t t h a t t h e
d e c l i n e of t h e V a s i r e d d i f ami ly due t o t h e d i s -
s e n s i o n s among its members removed the last impedl-
ment t o the Company t o c o n s o l i d a t e its a u t h o r i t y
i n Guntur d i s t r i c t *
1. DESHHUIM r Hereditary Off icer exsrc ie ing auprcan,
P o l k a and Revsnw a u t h o r i t y over a d i e t r i c t ,
2. PARAGMA t A Sub-d ivb ion of a D i s t r i c t ,
3. W U A V A R : Hereditary Off leer h v i n g Po l i ce au tho r i ty
aver d l s t r i o t .
4 , r I n 1724, t h s Subcldar of ttn w:can, Nizm-
Ul-Mulk fo r el1 p r a c t i c a l purpoeeo b e c m independent
of the c o n t r o l of the ~ u g h u l Emperor a t Delhi. He
ruled over the Hyderaktad Subah under the t i t l e
W i a u a and hls dynarty was known a s Asaf Jah.
5. HAVELI I House hold lands, Khas lands ( s e l e c t o r
p r iva t e ) . Lands under d i r e c t govrrnarrrnt menagemant
f o r government needs.
6 . W L r A d iv i s ion of cr Taluk o r District yielding
revenue.
7. Jaggalah was beheaded by Basalat Jung I s Off jeers,
wbn Jaggahh attended a conference.
8. (r@rlor nrakemh, A Manual of ths KSstar Di8irtrkt
(~adrrr , 1883), pp,309-10,
9. sow ab A8rf Jrh-I
1 . ~ a z illld-Din-Yhm P iroze Jung ,
2 , NiaamIUd-Doulrk Nalrir Jung,
3, Salirbat Jung,
4 . ~jzu hlikhm Bahadur,
5 , Baulat J w , and
6 , nughal Alikhan,
10, Daruvuri Voerahh (d, ), Gunturn Mandala Sarvasvarn,
pp.121-35.
11. NOCn,M I A divieion of a largo Zamlndari,
12. Elliot Report t o Gwernment aP Madr.8, paras
7 end 14, 17 April 1846, Madras Revenue Proceed-
il0g8, Vol. 281, pp.7443, Quoted i n R o b r t Eric
Frykenberg, Guntur District, 1788-1648 (Oxford,
19651, pp.42-43.
13. MSULIPATUl C O W I L t It was a Provincial Council
rorponerible t o ttm Govrrnmnt ob Madras. Guntur
d b t r i c t was gut under its charge, Later it
axercismd trio much independence, beeam indlffe-
rent and subjected t o eevere c r i t ic i sm and defi-
c ien t revenue. Final ly it was abolished in 1794.
1 4 , Let ters from the co l lec tor t o the Government of
Madrar I
13 SeptOmkr 1788, W.D.R. (2934 a 33-47]
25September1788, G, ( " " 1
30SepterPkr1788, w. ( * r " 1
18 January 1789, M.D.R. (2995 r 9-38).
15. Guide t o the Records of ~aaul ipa tam District,
1682-1835, Vol, 111 (Madras, 19351, pp.129 and 135.
16, I (PAQOW) PAGODA dsnoter Hindu Temple.
Alro th gold coin foorerly coined a t Madras . . , frcm its hiving the device a templo on its
f we. Therefore the Madras Papodaa originated
l ike tb ir . The Madras pagodas were valued art
45 fanane or roughly three and half rupee@,
17, I*@ttclrS from Collector to BOR, Madras, regarding
bordor disputes :
20 July 1789, M.D.R. (2997 r 7- 8)
23 July 1789, ztd. ( ' r 11-18)
25Ju ly 1789, G. ( " r 24-31)
31 July 1789, G. ( " 1 44-45)
13 August 1789, 3. ( " t 97 1
17 August 1789, ( " 1114-15)
13October1789, 9, ! " 1216 1
18. Letters f ram c o l l e c t o r to m, Madram 1
19, Letters f roa COll~ctOr to BOIL, Madram.
10 January 1788,
17 May 1769,
27 way 1789,
26 June 1789,
25 July 1789,
9 August 1789,
29 September1 719,
31 Deceaber 1789,
H .D.P. - Ibid. - IbLd. - Ibid. - Ibid. - Ibid. - Ibid* - Ibid. -
20. M t t t r e f ram Collector t o BOP, Madras.
29 AugWt 1789, M.D.R. (2997 i 142- 4 4 )
2 Septe~berl789, w. ( * 1 149- 51)
19 O c t o b e r 1789, e. ( * r 224- 2 6 )
20 o c t o b r 1789, u. ( " 1 233- 34) .
22. OUNTUR COnnITm ; Appointed in 1790 t o inveati-
gate t h e affairs 13 Guntur clrcar and the caweeaa
of the rpprreut defalcation of revenue. I t con-
s i s t e d of Messrs. Basil Cocharm, A n d m Scot t
and Williu Jmaa. By october 1791, dissentions
among t h e menbeto croppd up and lad to the aboli*
t i0n d the Casonittea on 31 of that month,
23. Letters f rcm the Members d Guntur committea to
POI, Hadrrr.
20 September 1790, M.D.R. (3005 I 275-81)
1 4 J a n w r y 1791, G. ( * 8 5 4 1 )
19 Maroh 1791, g. ( " r 636-37)
5 segtearbsr 1791, s. (3006 t 1 5 7 4 1 )
12 October 1791, fbid. ( * : 389-913
310ctober 1791, z. ( * 1 5 0 6 4 7 )
24. Latter frm the Chief, Hasulipatm counci l t o t h s
Clarenwnt rd Madras, 26 A p r i l 1793, H .D .R
(3006 I Page - not visible),
25, Letter from BOR, Madras to Guntur C a l ~ r c t a r
G.orpe, Andrsw Rm, 21 March 1796, G ,D.R.
(962-A t 1 2 0 4 0 ) .
26. OorJor Umlrrub, A Manual of the Kirtna District, p. 311.
27. Letter8 f ran BOR, ~adr.8 t o Ountur Colleotor
George Andrew Ram:
29 February 1796, GeDrR. (962 I 97-104).
12 and 13 August 1796, z d 9 7 9 I 296- 99) .
28. O ~ R UackmlZh, A Manual of the KLtna Dhtrict,
p.312.
29, Letter from the Swretary, Fort S t , Geoqe, Madras
to the Collector of Guntur, 4 May 1815, f3.D.R.
(970 I 1-9).
31. Letter of Vasircddi Venkatadri Naidu t o t W Gwern-
meat of nadrrs, 23 January 1796, G ,D.R. (979142)r
Let te r of the Owerarent t o Varireddi Venkatadri
Naidu, 1 2 February 1796, G.D.R. (962 r 86).
32. Letter from the Gawrnor of Madras t o Collector,
23 ~ u l y 1813, e. (982 r 346); Le t te r from the
Collector of Guntw t o the Collsetor of Benaras,
2 7 September 1814, G ,D,R, (968 t 129-31 ) ? Guide t o
tha Recaran of Guntur District 1795-1835 (Madras,
19341, p.341
33. Letters of Vaakeddi Venkatadri ~ a i d u t o CollectOt,
20 and 23 NovQPkr 1801, C .D.R. (9804 r 5654611
Qordon Haalseruk, A Manual of the Kiatna D i s t r i c t ,
p.313r
34. D!tSMTlU r A tern app1i.d t o the Marathl opcsaklng
Brahmins belonging t o the denomination of Mathwas.
35. Letter of Jlsgrnnadha Babu t o S t . John Thackaray,
Co l l ec to r of Guntur, N,D, M.D.R. (3064 t 1-64).
36, L e t t e r fram the Secretary (Revenus) P o r t S t . Owwe,
Xadras t o c o l l e c t o r , Guntur, 21 Cctober 1814,
G+D.R. (973 8 11-18) 4
37. L s t t s t s fran thn Secretary t o ths Co l l ec to r , Gunturr
38. C&libroolu, Old C i v i l code No. VII I , v o l , I11
(nadrar, N . D . ) , p.295.
39. Miscellaneous p e t i t i o n s of Rarnanadha Blsbu and
Pamathma throwgb Vinnakota Vankar h h , Pleader,
21 OctobOr 1817, G . D . R . (975 r 223-47).
40. Extract f car th Proceedings of the P rov inc i a l Court
O f A p p r l , Masulipatam, 6 N0V-r 1917, G.D.R.
(975 t 2 4 7 4 9 ) r
41. Representat ianr of Ramanadha Babu and P a m a t h a m a
t o BOR, Madras, 29 January 1818, O.D,R. (975 8
193-222 1,
42 , b e t t e r f roRl the c o l l e c t o r t o Govetnment of Hadrar,
24 Jm 1819, G.D.R. (977-B 1 432).
43. L e t t e r f rOn Jagannodha Babu t o BOR, N.D., G .D,R.,
(3963 t 4 3 2 4 0 ) .
4 4 , Gordon Uaakenzi., A Manual of t h e Kistna District,
p.314.
45. Co l l ec to r t o Government of Madrar, 3 March 1825,
H.D.R. (4060 t 90-91). -
46. c o l l e c t o r t o Govemnmnt of Madras, 27 arch 1825,
U.D*R. (4060 t 105-32). - 47. Oovemmlmt of Madroo t o Co l l ec to r , N.D,, G.D.R.
(3981 8 64-79)
48. Oordos Waakenzi., A Manwl of t h e Kis tna District,
pp.316-17,