1994 Supreme(AP) 413

Andhra Pradesh High Court
Judges : S.S.M.QUADRI, S.V.MARUTHI
S.Veera Reddy - Appellant
Versus
Chetlapalli Chandraiah - Respondent
Decided On : 09-13-94

The inamdar has the right to transfer his rights in favor of any third person, and the transferee would be entitled to all those rights, and such a transfer is not prohibited by the provisions of the Inams Abolition Act.

Headnote:

INAMS ABOLITION ACT - SECTION 3(2)(B) - TRANSFER OF RIGHTS BY INAMDAR - VALIDITY - CIVIL COURT JURISDICTION - PARTITION SUIT - INAMDAR'S RIGHT TO ALIENATE OR TRANSFER LANDS - SECTION 4 - REGISTRATION OF INAMDARS AS OCCUPANTS - REQUIREMENTS - PERSONAL CULTIVATION - FAMILY HOLDING - REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER'S ORDER - SET ASIDE - REMAND FOR FRESH DISPOSAL.

Fact of the Case:

The dispute arose over 9 acres of land in Survey No. 91 of Bowenpally village, Secunderabad, which was an inam land abolished under the Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Abolition of Inams Act, 1955. One Atchi Reddy was declared a protected tenant of the land, and the appellants claimed to be transferees of his interest under a document executed in February 1963. Respondents 1 to 3 and 7 to 11, heirs of one Sattaiah, claimed possession of the land, asserting that Sattaiah had surrendered his tenancy rights to the erstwhile inamdar Gulam Moinuddin in November 1966 and that Moinuddin had entered into an agreement for sale of the land in his favor, later releasing the land to him in April 1969. The Executive Magistrate passed a preliminary order in October 1967, and the land was attached and taken possession of. The High Court, on revision, held that Sattaiah was in possession of the land. The appellants filed a suit for declaration of title and perpetual injunction against the respondents, who contested the suit, claiming title from Moinuddin and his brother. The trial court dismissed the suit, holding that a civil court had no jurisdiction to grant the reliefs sought. The appellants appealed, and the learned single Judge of the High Court dismissed the appeal, accepting the findings of the Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Secunderabad, on all the issues framed in the suit. The appellants filed a Letters Patent Appeal (LPA), and the respondents filed a Civil Revision Petition (CRP) challenging the order of the Joint Collector, Ranga Reddy District, confirming the occupancy rights in favor of the appellants.

Finding of the Court:

The court held that the inamdar had the right to transfer his rights in favor of any third person, and the transferee would be entitled to all those rights, and such a transfer was not prohibited by the provisions of the Act. The court also held that the order of the Joint Collector, impugned in the Civil Revision Petition, did not advert to the requirements of personal cultivation and the holding of the claimants and merely confined his consideration to who was in possession of the land. Therefore, the court set aside the order under revision and remitted the matter to the Revenue Divisional Officer, Chevella Division, for fresh disposal in accordance with the law, keeping in view the observations made by the court.

Issues: 1. Whether a civil court has jurisdiction to grant the reliefs of declaration of title, confirmation of possession, and a perpetual injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with the possession of the plaintiffs in respect of the suit land? 2. Whether the agreement of sale executed by Gulam Mohiuddin and his brothers is true and valid? 3. Whether Vanam Achi Reddy has validly surrendered his rights to the Tahsildar? 4. Whether the defendants were in possession of the suit property as alleged by them in paragraph 6 of the written statement? 5. Whether the plaintiffs have title to the suit land, known as Waddevani Davi, measuring 9 acres? 6. Whether the valuation of the suit land and the court fee paid are correct? 7. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to the injunction? 8. Whether the 4th defendant is a necessary party? 9. To what relief?

Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the civil court has jurisdiction to grant the reliefs sought in the suit, as both the appellants and the respondents had applied for occupancy rights under the Inams Abolition Act. 2. The court held that the document Ex. A-1, which purported to be a lease deed in favor of the appellants for a period of 100 years, was inadmissible in evidence as it was not properly stamped and was unregistered, and the transfer of interest by the tenant was violative of Section 30 of the Tenancy Act. 3. The court held that the appellants failed to establish both title to the land in question and possession thereof, and therefore, the claim for injunction was rightly rejected. 4. The court held that the order of the Joint Collector, impugned in the Civil Revision Petition, did not advert to the requirements of personal cultivation and the holding of the claimants and merely confined his consideration to who was in possession of the land. Therefore, the court set aside the order under revision and remitted the matter to the Revenue Divisional Officer, Chevella Division, for fresh disposal in accordance with the law, keeping in view the observations made by the court.

Final Decision: The court dismissed the LPA and allowed the CRP, setting aside the order of the Joint Collector and remitting the matter to the Revenue Divisional Officer, Chevella Division, for fresh disposal in accordance with the law, keeping in view the observations made by the court.