The civil court has jurisdiction to decide the questions arising under Section 11 of the Madras Estates Abolition Act, 1948, notwithstanding any earlier decision of the Settlement authority as to the persons entitled to the grant of patta under Section 11 of the Act.

M. JAGANNADHA RAO, J.

( 1 ) THIS is an appeal preferred by defendants 1 and 16 against the judgment and decree in O. S. No. 50/78 on the file of Sub-Court, Gudur, dated 8-3-1979.

( 2 ) THE above suit and O S. No. 10/78 were disposed of together by a common judgment by the learned Subordinate Judge. The four plaintiffs in o. S. No- 50/78 are arrayed as defendants 5 to 60 in O. S. No. 10/78. Defendants 1, 14 and 16 in O. S. No. 50/78 are respectively defendant No. 7, plaintiff and D. 8 in O. S. No. 10/78. There is no appeal by the present appellants who are defendants 7 and 8 in O. S. Np. 10/78 against the judgment and decree therein. The appellants have however preferred an appeal only against the judgment and decree in O. S. No. 50/78.

( 3 ) IN the present suit O. S. No. 50/78 the plaintiffs have sought for a declaration of their title to the plaint schedule land and for delivery of possession thereof and for payment of mesne profits from the date of suit till the date of delivery of possession and costs. The subject matter of the suit consists of two items. The first item is an extent of Ac. 0-08 cents and the second item is of Ac. 2-07 cents. The land is situated in Kuchiwada village Gudur Taluk, Nellore District. The suit originally filed on 1-8-74 was valued at Rs. 483-75 for the purpose of jurisdiction. Subsequently it was transferred to Sub-Court, Gudur.

( 4 ) THE plaint contentions are as follows : The plaintiffs 1 to 4 are jointly entitled to the plaint schedule land of an extent of Ac. 2-15 cents out of Ac. 7-68 cents in Survey No. 54 in patta No. 30. It was in their family possession from times immemorial. The village Kuchiwada was a shrotrium village and was taken over by the Government under the Madras Estates abolition Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) on 24-7-1954. In the survey conducted by the Government it was found that the plaintiffs were in actual possession and enjoyment of \c. 7-68 cents and consequently a rough patta was granted in favour of the plaintiffs by the Assistant Settlement officer in the name of Kasala Subrahmanyam Chetty, the grand father of plaintiffs 1 to 3 and the father of the 4th plaintiff some times before 1958. Kasala Subrahmanyam Chetty died in 1959. Subsequently the patta was transferred in the name of K. Subrahmanyam Chetty grand father of the plaintiffs. The certified copy of No. 32 register showing the rough patta in favour of the said K. Subrahmanyam Chetty is marked as Ex. B. 9. Subsequently the patta was transferred in favour of plaintiffs in the No. 10 (1) account vide Exs. B. 94 and B. 95. While as the 1st defendant occupied ac. 0-08 cents and one Papa Reddy and Audisesha Reddy occupied item No. 2 of Ac. 2-07 cents in the north east of Survey No. 54 (the subject matter of o. S. No. 50/78 is item 33 of the plaint A schedule in O. S. No. 10/78 and is separately shown as ABCDEFGM ). The said Audiseshareddy died two years before suit and the defendants 2 to 6 are his successors in occupation. They have no right tc the said property. But in spite of Ex. B. 9 of the year 1958, the Assistance Settlement Officer, Nellore classified the land as Anadheenam in 1962. Therefore the plaintiffs predecessor Bala Subrahmanyam Chetty (son of late Kasala Subrahmanyam Chetty) filed W. P. No. 3972/1971 for quashing this order and also the subsequent orders rejecting the revision, passed by the Director of Settlements and Board of Revenue. The High court quashed the latter orders of the Settlement Officer as void. Consequently the order of the Assistant Settlement Officer dated 5-7-1963 stating that the plaintiffs are entitled only to 4 acres in survey No. 54 is also void as neither the plaintiffs nor their predecessors were added as parties, after the death of late Subrahmanyam Chetty in 1959. It was also observed by the high Court in W. P. No. 3972/71 that it was open to the petitioners therein to challenge the order of the Assistant Settlement Officer dated 5-7-1963 in appropriate procee

Click Here to Read the rest of this document