Pinninti Kistamma vs Duvvada Parsuram Chowdary

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2010 Supreme(SC) 27

2010 (1) Supreme 477
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Tarun Chatterjee and Harjit Singh Bedi, JJ.
Pinninti Kistamma and Ors. — Appellant(s)
versus
Duvvada Parsuram Chowdary & Ors —Respondent(s)
Civil Appeal Nos. 6900-6906 of 2001
Decided on : 08.01.2010

Advocates Appeared:
Jitendra Sharma, Sr. Adv., P.N. Jha, Ms. Minakshi Vij, V.G. Pragasam, P.S. Narasimha, L. Roshmani, Sekhar, G. Devasa, Sanjay Bansal, G.K. Bansal, P.N. Jha, Advs., with him for the appearing parties.

Headnote:Jurisdiction of Civil Courts-Exclusion of-Suit filed by Appellants Tenants claiming tenancy rights in respect of 19.80 Acres of land in Kambirigam Village and also for permanent injunction restraining the Respondents ‘Landlords’ from interfering with their possession over said land- Landlords also filed Cross Suits praying for injunction restraining Tenants from interfering with peaceful possession of an extent of land measuring 181 Acres which also included the aforementioned 19.80 Acres- District Munsif, decreed the suits filed by Tenants praying for an order of permanent injunction, restraining Landlords from interfering with their plaint schedule lands- By a separate order, District Munsif dismissed the cross suits filed by Landlords - First appellate court allowed the appeals of landlords and dismissed the suit of the tenants against which second appeals were preferred by the tenants- High Court by the impugned judgment allowed all Second Appeals-Appeals against judgment and decree passed by High Court in Second Appeals and also against the judgment of same High Court in Review Petition whereby High Court modified its earlier order - High Court, after considering relevant statutes on the subject and after considering material evidence on record came to a conclusion that decision of the Tehsildar which came subsequent to the filing of the suit i.e. on 10th of September, 1984, which was affirmed by the District Collector and the Commissioner of Land Revenue, had achieved the status of finality- High Court even came to the conclusion that even independent of that proposition the evidence, however, thin it may be, weighted in favour of persons who claimed to be cultivators of the disputed lands-In the impugned judgment, High Court had accepted the finding of the Tehsildar which stood in favour of the tenants that they had been cultivating the lands in question since time immemorial- In view of the findings arrived at, Appeals of the Tenant were allowed by High Court and judgment of First Appellate Court was set aside- While accepting the order of Tehsildar dated 10 th of September, 1984, High Court referred to the provisions of Andhra Pradesh Record of Rights in Land Act, 1971 and after Considering principles relating to exclusion of jurisdiction of the Civil Courts by Statutory Tribunals, came to conclusion that order of Tehsildar having achieved the status of finality could not be upset by Civil Court- High Court further found that Tenants were cultivating the land in question and, therefore, they were entitled to a decree for permanent injunction against landlords -No merit found in appeals so far as the Landlords/appellants were concerned –Appeals dismissed (Paras 13 to 22)
       [AIR 1985 SC 577], [AIR 1986 SC 794], [AIR 1976 AP 402], relied
       Facts of the Case :
        Issue in consideration in present case was whether the Civil Court is empowered to set aside the orders of three statutory authorities viz. Tehsildar, District Collector and the Commissioner of Land Revenue, when no challenge was made to their orders holding Tenants as cultivators of the land in question?
       Findings of the Court :
        High Court, after considering relevant statutes on the subject and after considering material evidence on record came to a conclusion that decision of the Tehsildar which came subsequent to the filing of the suit i.e. on 10th of September, 1984, which was affirmed by the District Collector and the Commissioner of Land Revenue, had achieved the status of finality. High Court even came to the conclusion that even independent of that proposition the evidence, however, thin it may be, weighted in favour of persons who claimed to be cultivators of the disputed lands.In the impugned judgment, High Court had accepted the finding of the Tehsildar which stood in favour of the tenants that they had been cultivating the lands in question since time immemorial. In view of the findings arrived at, Appeals of the Tenant were allowed by High Court and judgment of First Appellate Court was set aside. While accepting the order of Tehsildar dated 10.09. 1984, High Court referred to the provisions of Andhra Pradesh Record of Rights in Land Act, 1971 and after Considering principles relating to exclusion of jurisdiction of the Civil Courts by Statutory Tribunals, came to conclusion that order of Tehsildar having achieved the status of finality could not be upset by Civil Court.High Court further found that Tenants were cultivating the land in question and, therefore, they were entitled to a decree for permanent injunction against landlords.
       Result : Appeals dismissed

JUDGMENT

Tarun Chatterjee, J.

1. These two batches of appeals are directed against the judgment and decree dated 27th of March, 1997 passed by the High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad in Second Appeal Nos. 361 of 1996 & batch and Second Appeal Nos. 374 of 1996 & batch and also against the judgment and order dated 10th of September, 1997 of the same High Court in Review Petition Nos. 6980 of 1997 and batch whereby the High Court modified its earlier order dated 27th of March, 1997.

2. The Appellants in CA Nos. 6900-6906 of 2001(hereinafter called the ‘Tenants’), filed O.S. Nos. 43 of 1980 and batch (7 suits) claiming tenancy rights in respect of 19.80 Acres of land in Kambirigam Village and also prayed for permanent injunction restraining the Respondents in C.A.Nos.6900-6906 of 2001, who are also the appellants in C.A.Nos.6907-6946 of 2001 (hereinafter called as the ‘Landlords’) from interfering with their possession over the said land. The Landlords also filed Cross Suits being OS Nos. 75/1980 and batch (13 suits) praying for injunction restraining the Tenants from interfering with the peaceful possession of an extent of land measuring 181 Acres which also included the aforementioned 19.80 Acres.

3. The case of the Tenants in their suits was that the plaint schedule lands formed a part of the pre-settlement un- enfranchised Inams in Kambirigam Mokhasa in the erstwhile Tarla Estate, Tekkali Taluk. They had been cultivating the plaint schedule land as tenants from time immemorial under inamdars, predecessors-in-interest of Landlords by paying Rajbhagam paddy to them. In 1804, the British Government granted

“Sannad” to the Tarla Estate wherein Kambirigam was described as a Jagir which was an Estate within the meaning of Section 3 of the Estate Land Act, 1908. However, no patta was granted to the Landlords or their predecessors-in-interest. Therefore, according to the tenants, the rights of the Landlords in respect of the lands in question vested in the Government by virtue of Madras Estates Abolition and Conversion into Raiyotwari Act of 1948. (for short `Estates Abolition Act’). The tenants had complained to the Revenue Authorities alleging that the Revenue records were manipulated by the Landlords. Pursuant to this, Tehsildar, Palasa conducted an enquiry wherein it was found that the Tenants and other raiyots were occupants and cultivators in the Revenue Records for Fasli 1389. Being aggrieved by these orders, Landlords filed a Writ petition, which came to be registered as W.P.No. 3189 of 1980 before the High Court of Andhra Pradesh claiming that they were not given an opportunity to be heard in the enquiry conducted by the Tehsildar. Allowing the Writ Petition, the High Court vide its order dated 24th of August, 1982 quashed the order of the Tehsildar. However, the High Court had given liberty to the Tehsildar to conduct a fresh enquiry after giving due hearing to the parties. Accordingly, the Tehsildar Palasa, conducted an enquiry again and passed an order dated 10th of September, 1984, declaring the Tenants and others as cultivators in Kambirigam village and further observed that since the time of their ancestors, the Tenants and others had been cultivating the lands in dispute separately and also making payment to the Mokhasadars. This order was confirmed by the Collector and Commissioner of Land Revenue.

4. In the cross suits filed before the District Munsif, the Landlords claimed to be the Mokhasadars of Kambirigam Mokhasa. According to them, the Plaint Schedule Lands are their absolute property which fell to their respective shares in the family arrangement among their respective family members inter se in or about the year 1945. Ever since such arrangement, they had been in exclusive possession and enjoyment of their respective land as described in the schedule of the plaint. According to the Landlords, Kambirigam village did not fall within the ambit of Section 2(d) of the Estates Abolition Act. No patta was grant

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2010 Supreme(SC) 27

2010 (1) Supreme 477SUPREME COURT OF INDIATarun Chatterjee and Harjit Singh Bedi, JJ. Pinninti Kistamma and Ors. — Appellant(s)versusDuvvada Parsuram Chowdary & Ors —Respondent(s)Civil Appeal Nos. 6900-6906 of 2001Decided on : 08.01.2010

Cases Referred (3)

2010 (1) Supreme 477
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Tarun Chatterjee and Harjit Singh Bedi, JJ.
Pinninti Kistamma and Ors. — Appellant(s)
versus
Duvvada Parsuram Chowdary & Ors —Respondent(s)
Civil Appeal Nos. 6900-6906 of 2001
Decided on : 08.01.2010