1981 Supreme(AP) 148

Andhra Pradesh High Court
Judges : CHENNAKESAVA REDDY, S.MADHUSUDAN RAO
Satyapramoda Thirthaswamulavaru - Appellant
Versus
Mula Gunnayya (deceased) - Respondent
Decided On : 07-08-81

A compromise decree which operates as a lease requires registration under s. 17 (1) of the Indian Registration Act.

Headnote:

COMPROMISE DECREE - LEASE - REGISTRATION - INVALIDITY - ADVERSE POSSESSION - JURISDICTION OF CIVIL COURT - TENANT HOLDING OVER - EVICTION - DAMAGES.

Fact of the Case:

The plaintiff, Uttaradi Mutt, is a religious institution. The suit properties situate in the village Ananthavaram in East Godavari District are inam lands and they were granted for the support of the Uttaradi Mutt. The lands are covered by title deed No. 5204. The grant covered both kudivaram and Melvaram interest in the lands. The Mutt has been enjoying the suit properties by leasing them to tenants. The plaintiff Mutt through the then Power of Attorney Holder and Agent of the Head of the Mutt filed the suit O. S. No. 17 of 1908 in the Court of the District Judge, East Godavari at Rajahmundry for recovery of possession and for profits against the first defendant and the grandfather of the second defendant and some others. The said suit was compromised on 5-3-1910 and Ex. A-1 is the certified copy of the compromise decree in O. S. No. 17 of 1908. In pursuance of the said compromise, the first defendant and the grand-father of the second defendant, and after the latters death, the second defendant have been in possession of the plaint schedule properties paying the agreed rent Rs. 40-50 per year per acre. They were also paying the land revenue and water tax due to the Government. The defendants paid rents up to the end of Fasli 1365, corresponding to 1955-56, but they committed default in payment of rent due under the compromise decree since the fasli year 1366. Thereupon, the plaintiff got issued quit notice Ex. A-8, dated 31-12-1959 to the defendants stating that they have committed default in payment of rent due under the compromise decree Ex. A-1 and demanding the defendants to deliver possession of the suit schedule properties to the plaintiff by the end of the agricultural year 1959-60. It was also stated in the notice that the compromise decree was not valid and binding on the plaintiffs. The defendants received the notice, but the first defendant alone sent a reply notice Ex. A-9 dated 31-1-1960.

Finding of the Court:

1. The compromise decree Ex. A-1 did not operate as a lease and therefore its non-registration did not render it invalid. 2. The compromise decree was also effective as an estopped between the parties and, therefore, the plaintiff cannot claim possession of the suit lands. 3. The defendants had acquired a permanent right of occupancy by virtue of adverse possession. 4. The Civil Court had no jurisdiction to order ejectment of the defendants and that the tenancy Court alone had jurisdiction to order eviction of the defendants.

Issues: 1. Whether the suit land is an estate ? 2. If so, whether the plaintiff is entitled to possession ? 3. Whether the defendants are entitled to occupancy rights by adverse possession or otherwise ? 4. Whether the compromise decree in O. S. No. 17/1908, does not bind the plaintiff ? 5. Whether the plaintiff holds the patta for the suit lands ? 6. If so, whether the patta does not bind the defendants ? 7. To what damages is plaintiff entitled ? 8. Whether the plaintiff is estopped from claiming possession ? 9. To what relief ?

Ratio Decidendi: 1. A compromise decree which operates as a lease requires registration under s. 17 (1) of the Indian Registration Act. 2. Sub-section (2) of Sec. 17 only exempts decrees and orders which fall within cls. (b) and (c) of sub-sec. (1) or Clause relates to lease does not fall within the exceptions engrafted in sub-sec. (2) of S. 17. 3. If a document in question is regarded as lease it could not be received in evidence. 4. The compromise decree in this case, Ex. A-1 did not operate as a fresh lease and so is not invalid for want of registration. 5. The defendants have been in long possession and they asserted title with occupancy rights. They had mortgaged the lands; they had sold the lands, they had also partitioned the lands and the possession of the defendants and their predecessors-in-interest dates back to 1818. In these circumstances, we have no doubt in holding that the defendants alone had the Kudivaram right and they had acquired permanent right of occupancy. 6. The defendants have been undisputedly in possession of the lands from 1910 till 1966 for over 55 years. So they must be found to have acquired rights as perpetual lessees by adverse possession. 7. When only a part of the relief claimed can be granted by a tenancy court, the Civil Court had jurisdiction to entertain the suit.

Final Decision: Appeal dismissed.