Back
Andhra Pradesh High Court
Judges : P.KODANDA RAMAYYA
MATTAM PARVATHAIAH - Appellant
Versus
B.Naga Reddy - Respondent
A.S. No. 769/78
Decided On : 12-02-86
Advocates Appeared :
Mr. K. Mahipathy Rao,Mr. Y. Sivarama Sastry
A. P. (T.A) Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, Sec.38 [6] proviso and A.P. [T.A.] Abolition of Inams Act, Sec. 33-Sale Certificate issued by the authority without previous sanction of Government - Not a nullity - Inams Abolition Act does not affect appl1cation of provisions of Tenancy Act.
Held : The plaint and written statement form part of record of the acts of the Judge who is a judicial Officer and to the extent of its proving the factum of filing a particular suit against a particular person the said document constitutes a public document within the meaning of Sec. 74 of the Evidence Act and the same can be used for limited purpose of contradicting the party in evidence if those proceedings are shown between the same parties. As the plaint and the written statement are not public documents in the sense that they are not prepared by a public officer and they cannot be said to form the acts of the public officer but to the extent they form the records of the Acts of the public officer they are admissible by producing the certified copies to the extent of showing the existence and the condition of such documents within the meaning of Sec. 65 of the envisaged by that Section. Hence the plaint and they written statement are admissible to the extent of proving that particular suit is filed against a particular individual and to show the proceedings between the parties.
A. I. R. 1951 Cal. 320 dissented from.
The Proviso to Sec. 38 (6) is intended to protect the interest of the Government prohibiting any alienation in respect of inam lands without prior sanction of the Government. The true effect of the proviso is that the sale would be inoperative in respect of the inam lands unless the sanction was accorded by the State Government. The Proviso in the context in which it has occurred does not permit the construction that the sale is a nullity if prior sanction is not taken. It only prohibits the authority to issue a certificate till sanction of the Government is obtained. No machinery is provided to validate the sale. Hence the sale is only inoperative till the sanction is granted and subsequent sanction granted by the Government will make the sale perfect.
The provisions permitting alienation In favour of protected tenant under Sec. 38 (6) are clearly inconsistent with the provisions of Sec. 3 of the Abolition Act and also the enquiry contemplated under Rule 5 of the A.P. (T.A.) Abolition of Inams Rules for the purpose of registering the claims of the inamdars and other tenure holders as occupiers. Hence the operation of the inams Abolition Act will not affect the application of the provisions of the Tenancy Act in view of the saving clause embodied under Sec. 33 of the Abolition Act.
Partly A.S. allowed
( 1 ) THE Plaintiffs are the appellants in this appeal. The suit is laid for declaration of title of the plaint schedule property and recovery of possession and also for declaration of the rights of the plaintiffs to irrigate the suit lands with the water of Timmai Cheru and Ekkaldevi Kunta and for permanent injuction restraining the defendants from causing obstruction to the enjoyment of the irrigation channels of above two sources of irrigation in the suit lands and for mandatory injunction to restore the irrigation channel that was destroyed by the defendants and to restore to its original condition and for recovery of profits, both past and future.
( 2 ) THE Plaintiff averments can be divided into two parts. One relating to title, and another relating to easementary rights. Now, it is agreed by both the counsel that the question of title may be decided in this appeal and the claim regarding the easementary rights may be left out to be decided either by the revenue authorities, or the civil court afresh. It is enough to state the averments in the plaint, regarding the title. The plaintiffs case is that they are the brothers and they are the protected tenants in respect of the plaint schedule property, which is a part of Acs. 62-03 guntas along with other joint protected tenants, and the suit land is fed by irrigation sources of Timmai Cheru and Ekkaladevi Kunta and the defendant No. 1, who is the owner of the property, agreed to sell this property to them and having received the consideration, the authorities under the Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1950 (Hereinafter referred to as the Act) issued the sale certificate under Section 38 (6) of the act and however in the month of March, 1968 defendants 1 to 3, with the help of other defendants, forcibly took possession of the property and deprived their possession, and hence the the suit for declaration and for possession.
( 3 ) THE first defendant is the father of defendants 2 and 3. Defendants 4 to 9 are co-sharers and defendants 11 to 24 are supporters of defendants 1 to 3.
( 4 ) THE Suit was resisted on the ground that the plaintiffs are not the protected tenants of the suit holding, they were not in possession of the property and the certificate proceedings are vitiated by fraud and the suit land being a seri inam land no certificate can be issued, without prior sanction of the Government and hence the certificates of sale issued are invalid. It is also stated that the source of irrigation is not Ekkaladevi Kunta and the judgment and decree in O. S. No. 41 of 1967 operate as res judicata and hence the suit is liable to be dismissed.
( 5 ) THE court below framed the issues, as found in paragraph 9 and held that the plaintiffs are not entitled to possession of the suit land and they have no title or possession and the plaintiffs cannot establish the two sources of irrigation mentioned in the plaint and hence dismissed the suit though a separate issue was not framed regarding the truth and validity of the certificates issued under Section 38 (6) of the Act, it was held that the plaintiffs have not proved that they are the protected tenants and hence no title has passed, as per the certificates issued by the revenue authorities under the Act. It had also held that the certificates are invalid as there is no prior sanction of the Government, as contemplated by the Act.
( 6 ) IN this appeal the learned counsel for the appellants concentrated on the question of title seeking permission to agitate his easementary rights afresh before the Revenue authorities, or in the civil Courts. His main argument is that the Court below misdirected itself in holding that the sale certificates Exs. A-9 and A-10 are not true and valid and the plaintiffs are not proved to be protected tenants. He further urged that the Court below failed to draw the statutory presumption under the Act and put the burden on the plaintiffs to show that th
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
