IMMANENI PANDURANGA RAO, J.

( 1 ) THE respondents herein filed 0 S No. 149 of 1977 on the file of the court of the Principal Subordinate Judge, kakinada for declaration of their title to the plaint schedule properties, for recovery of possession and mesne profits in respect of an extent of Ac 14. 63 cents in thimmapuram village of East Godavari district.

( 2 ) THE learned Subordinate Judge on a consideration of the oral and documentary evidence adduced before him, cam to the conclusion that the previous orders of the tribunals and the High court do not operate as resjudicata that the lands are ryoti lands as pleaded by the plaintiffs and that the civil court has jurisdiction to try the suit. Basing on those findings. , he held that the plaintiffs are entitled to declaration of their title to the suit lands, for possession thereof and also for mesne profits. He accordingly granted a decree for declaration of title and recovery of possession with a direction that the mesne profits shall be determined on a separate application filed for that purpose.

( 3 ) AGGRIEVED by that decision, the first defendant (State of Andhra Pradesh) filed A S No. 169 of 1981 and the second defendant-Harijana Karmika Sangham thimmapuram (hereinafter referred to as "the Sangham") filed A S No, 161 of 1981. The learned First Additional District judge, Rajahmundry disposed of both the appeals by a common judgment holding that the suit properties are not tank-bed lands ; that a suit to declare title of the plaintiffs cannot be entertained by a civil court in view of the decision of our High Court in M J Syamala rao vs. Radhakanthaswami Varu (1) 1984 (1) APLJ. 113 and that however, the civil court has jurisdiction to restore possession of the plaintiffs who were forcibly dispossesed by the second defendant after March, 1976 as alleged in the plaint and to grant the relief of mesne profits. While therefore, confirming the decree of the trial court with regard to the reliefs of recovery of possession by the plaintiffs and mesne profits, the learned additional District Judge has partly allowed the appeals dismissing the suit for the relief of declaration of title.

( 4 ) AGGRIEVED by the said decision, the first defendant - Government has preferred S A No. 4 of 1986 and the second defendant - Sangham, in whose favour the Government have granted a lease treating the suit lands as tank poramboke, filed S A No. 82 of 1986.

( 5 ) THE plaintiffs filed cross-objections in Second Appeal No. 82 of 1986 challenging the decision of the lower appellate court disallowing the relief of declaration of their title. Poth the appeals and the cross - objections are being dealt with together.

( 6 ) THE learned counsel for the second defendant and the learned Government pleader argued that when the civil court has no jurisdiction to try the suit, the granting of decree for possession and mesne profits is illegal and hence the decision of the learned Additional District judge to that extent is liable to be set aside. They further submitted that any order passed by the Board of Revneue and also the High Court m the previous. writ petitions operate as res judicata under sec. 64 (A) of the Estates (Abolition and conversion into Ryotwari) Act (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") and hence the courts below have committed an error in deciding the title in favour of the plaintiffs. According to them, inasmuch as the suit lands are communal lands, they vest in the Government and the second defendant, in whose favour a lease is granted in respect of the said lands, is entitled to continue in possession.

( 7 ) THE learned counsel for the respondents-cross-objectors relying upon the decision of the Supreme Court in state of T N vs. Ramalinga (2) AIR. 1986 SC 794 argued that the Supreme court has finally laid down that in the event of grant or refusal of a ryotwari patta by the Settlement Officer under section 11 of the Act, the Civil Court has got jurisdiction to adjudicate upon the real na

Click Here to Read the rest of this document