1996 Supreme(AP) 947

Andhra Pradesh High Court
Judges : M.N.RAO, S.R.NAYAK
Thallapaka Ananthacharyulu - Appellant
Versus
Principal Subordinate judge, Tirupati - Respondent
Decided On : 09-25-96

A judgment of a High Court Division Bench is final and binding on the parties and estops them from claiming any rights contrary to the findings of the Division Bench.

Headnote:

WRIT - PROHIBITION - SUBJECT - SUIT AND APPEAL - ACT/SECTION - MADRAS HINDU RELIGIOUS AND CHARITABLE ENDOWMENTS ACT, 1951, SECTIONS 3, 4, 7, 14, 14-A, 15 - ANDHRA PRADESH (ANDHRA AREA) INAMS (ABOLITION AND CONVERSION INTO RYOTWARI) ACT, 1956, SECTIONS 3, 4, 7 - CONTEMPT OF COURTS ACT, 1971, SECTION 2(B) - SUMMARY - The judgment deals with the interpretation of various provisions of the Madras Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1951, and the Andhra Pradesh (Andhra Area) Inams (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1956, in the context of a dispute over the ownership of certain lands between the Tirumala Tirupati Devasthanams (T.T.D.) and the Tallapaka people. The Court held that the judgment of a Division Bench of the High Court in a previous case, which had held that the land in question was an inam granted in favor of the Tallapaka people and not the T.T.D., was final and binding on the parties and that the T.T.D. was estopped from claiming any rights in respect of the land. The Court also held that the Civil Court and the Revenue Divisional Officer had no jurisdiction to entertain the suit and the appeal filed by the T.T.D., respectively, as the matters had already been settled by the Division Bench's judgment. The Court further held that the T.T.D.'s act of instituting the suit did not amount to an act of civil contempt within the meaning of Section 2(b) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, as the requisite mental element was absent. Accordingly, the Court allowed the writ petitions filed by the Tallapaka people and issued writs of prohibition restraining the Civil Court and the Revenue Divisional Officer from proceeding with the suit and the appeal, respectively. The Court also dismissed the contempt case filed against the T.T.D.

Fact of the Case:

The dispute arose from an application filed by the T.T.D. before the Revenue Divisional Officer, Chandragiri in 1962 under the Madras Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1951 against Tallapaka Venkata Seshacharyulu seeking resumption of the inam alleging that it was a grant in favor of the "manager for the time being of Nandanavanam at Tirumala or Tirupati to be held for the support of Sri Venkateswara Swamy Pagoda at Tirumala and to be held so long as the conditions of the grant are duly fulfilled". The T.T.D. contended that the grant was for the maintenance of flower and Tulasi garden and fruit bearing trees for the daily worship of and offering to Lord Venkateswara but neither offerings were made nor plants and trees maintained much less flowers and tulasi plants were supplied from the Nandanavanam to the deity by the inamdars. The T.T.D., therefore, prayed for: (i) resumption of the inam and determining it as a grant of both melwaram and kudiwaram (land revenue as well as proprietary right); and (ii) regranting the inam to the T.T.D., as an endowment.

Finding of the Court:

The Court held that the judgment of the Division Bench of the High Court in the previous case, which had held that the land in question was an inam granted in favor of the Tallapaka people and not the T.T.D., was final and binding on the parties and that the T.T.D. was estopped from claiming any rights in respect of the land. The Court also held that the Civil Court and the Revenue Divisional Officer had no jurisdiction to entertain the suit and the appeal filed by the T.T.D., respectively, as the matters had already been settled by the Division Bench's judgment. The Court further held that the T.T.D.'s act of instituting the suit did not amount to an act of civil contempt within the meaning of Section 2(b) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, as the requisite mental element was absent.

Issues: 1. Whether the Civil Court and the Revenue Divisional Officer had jurisdiction to entertain the suit and the appeal filed by the T.T.D., respectively, in light of the Division Bench's judgment in the previous case? 2. Whether the T.T.D.'s act of instituting the suit amounted to an act of civil contempt within the meaning of Section 2(b) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971?

Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Court held that the judgment of the Division Bench of the High Court in the previous case, which had held that the land in question was an inam granted in favor of the Tallapaka people and not the T.T.D., was final and binding on the parties and that the T.T.D. was estopped from claiming any rights in respect of the land. The Court also held that the Civil Court and the Revenue Divisional Officer had no jurisdiction to entertain the suit and the appeal filed by the T.T.D., respectively, as the matters had already been settled by the Division Bench's judgment. 2. The Court held that the T.T.D.'s act of instituting the suit did not amount to an act of civil contempt within the meaning of Section 2(b) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, as the requisite mental element was absent.

Final Decision: The Court allowed the writ petitions filed by the Tallapaka people and issued writs of prohibition restraining the Civil Court and the Revenue Divisional Officer from proceeding with the suit and the appeal, respectively. The Court also dismissed the contempt case filed against the T.T.D.