THE VASIREDDI FAMILY

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,