JUDGMENT (S.B. SINHA, J.)

1. Leave granted.

2. Whether the civil court has jurisdiction to entertain a suit for partition for division of respective shares amongst the members of a joint family, when in respect of some of the lands, occupancy right has been granted in favour of one of them in terms of the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Abolition of Inams Act, 1955 (for short `the Act) is the question involved herein.

3. The basic fact of the matter is not in dispute

4. One S. Ramakrishna Reddy was the owner of the properties. He had two sons, S. Ramachandra Reddy and S. Anantharam Reddy. S. Ramachandra Reddy died in the year 1968. He had two wives. Plaintiffs- Appellants are the first wife and the daughter of S. Ramachandra Reddy. The Defendants-Respondents are the son, second wife and the daughter of said S. Ramachandra Reddy.

5. The Legislature of the State of Andhra Pradesh enacted the Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Abolition of Inams Act, 1955 which came into force on 20th July, 1955. In the year 1973, Section 8 was enacted in terms whereof a person in possession could be registered as an occupant of the land from the date of vesting thereof. The first respondent was granted occupancy right by the R.D.O., Hyderabad in terms of Section 8 read with Section 10 of the Act. A suit for partition was filed on 3rd September, 1981. Some other persons claiming right as `Inamdars filed an application before the District Collector under Section 24 of the Act. However, the right of respondent No.1 thereover was found by the District Collector in terms of

an order dated 5th August, 1985. A preliminary issue was raised as regards the jurisdiction of the court which has been upheld by the impugned judgment.

6. Mr. T.L. Viswanatha Iyer, learned senior counsel appearing for the appellants, would submit that the decisions of the courts below is based upon the decision of this Court in Lokraj and others vs. Kishan Lal and others, [ (1995) 3 SCC 291 ], which cannot be said to have been correctly decided. Learned counsel pointed out that this Court in Bhubaneshwar Prasad Narain Singh v. Sidheswar Mukherjee, [ (1971) 1 SCC 556 ] upheld the right of a co-sharer and recognized such right in the entire body of the co-sharers.

7. Dr. Rajiv Dhawan, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents on the other hand, would submit that the said Act is a complete Code itself. The contention of the appellants that the registration of the land should not be granted in favour of respondent No. 1 is not correct in view of the terminologies used in Section 8 of the Act. It was contended that having regard to the provisions of Section 24 as also 29 of the Act, the civil court has no jurisdiction to grant a decree of partition.

8. We, at the outset, may notice the relevant provisions of the Act. Sections 3, 8, 10, 24 and 29 of the Act are as under:-

"Sec. 3: Abolition and vesting of imams and the consequences thereof:- (1) Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in any usage, settlement, contract, grant sanad order or instrument, Act regulation, rules or order having the force of law and notwithstanding any judgment, decree or order of a Civil or Revenue or Atiyat Court, and with effect from the date of vesting, all imams shall be deemed to have been abolished and shall vest in the State.

(2) Save as expressly provided by or under the provisions of this Act and with effect from the date of vesting the following consequences shall ensure, namely:

(a) xxxx

(b) all rights, title and interest vesting in the inamdar, kabiz-e-kadim, permanent tenant, protected tenant and non-protected tenant in respect of the inam land, other than the interests expressly saved by or under provisions of this Act and including those in all communal lands, cultivated and uncultivated lands (whether assessed or not), waste lands, pasture lands, forests, mines and minerals, quarries, rivers and streams, tanks and irrigation works, fisheries and