Back
Andhra Pradesh High Court
Judges : K.JAYACHANDRA REDDY, K.MADHAVA REDDY
Marriddi Janikamma - Appellant
Versus
Hanumantha Vajjula Paradesi Sarma - Respondent
Decided On : 12-28-79
The court held that the transmission of the decree by the Subordinate Judge's Court, Amalapuram, directly to the District Munsif's Court, Tanuku, without routing the same through the District Judge, is only an irregularity. Even otherwise, since the petitioners have not taken this objection in the first instance, it must be deemed that the objection was waived and they cannot be permitted to raise it at a later stage.
Fact of the Case:
The litigation has a long history and the necessary facts for the purpose of deciding the questions involved in those four cases are as follows:- One Vajjula Suryanarayana Murthy filed a reversionary suit O. S. No. 15 of 1945 for possession of various suit schedule properties including items 76 to 79 of the plaint schedule, Defendants 58 to 62 and 82 in the said suit claim to be in possession of these items and disputed the right of the plaintiff to get a decree against them. On the other hand, defendant No. 67 claimed the entire extent of these very same items as belonging to her exclusively. Therefore, there was a triangular contest. In the trial Court there was a decree in favour of the plaintiff as against defendants 58 to 62 and 82 and they were directed to put the plaintiff in possession of certain specified extents in their possession. The claim of defendant No. 67 was negatived and she was also asked to put the plaintiff in possession of the entire extent of these items. Against the decree of the trial Court appeals were filed in the Madras High Court A. S. No. 299 of 1947 was filed by defendants 58 to 62 and 82. It may be mentioned here that defendant No. 82 who is said to be the tenant was in possession of these Lands. A. S. No. 303 of 1947 was filed by defendant 67 who claimed the entire items for himself while defendants 58 to 62 and 82 claimed a portion to an extent of Ac. 4-79 cents out of these items in their own right as against the 67th defendant. The Madras High Court dismissed A. S. No. 299 of 1947 and allowed A. S. 303/47. Against the said judgment of the Madras High court the plaintiff preferred an appeal to the Supreme Court. The appeal was allowed and the Supreme Court remanded A. S. No. 303 of 1947 on 30-10-1964 to this Court for fresh disposal and same was dismissed by a Division Bench of the Court on 10-10-1966, granting a decree to the plaintiffs in respect of all the items viz., , items 76 to 79 to an extent of Ac. 15-111/2 cents including the lands held by defendants 58 to 62 and 82. It may be mentioned here that defendant No. 60 died on 1-7-1960.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the transmission of the decree by the Subordinate Judge's Court, Amalapuram, directly to the District Munsif's Court, Tanuku, without routing the same through the District Judge, is only an irregularity. Even otherwise, since the petitioners have not taken this objection in the first instance, it must be deemed that the objection was waived and they cannot be permitted to raise it at a later stage.
Issues: 1. Whether the transmission of the decree by the Subordinate Judge's Court, Amalapuram, directly to the District Munsif's Court, Tanuku, without routing the same through the District Judge, is an illegality or irregularity? 2. Whether the objection of limitation is valid? 3. Whether the legal representatives of defendant No. 60 were not brought on record and consequently the decree is a nullity? 4. Whether the appeals against the orders of the District Munsif, Tanuki, do not lie to the Sub ordinate Judges Court? 5. Whether the lands are under the occupation of tenants, i. e. , respondents 6 to 9, before the lower Court, and that they are entitled for protection under the Tenancy Act.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the transmission of the decree by the Subordinate Judge's Court, Amalapuram, directly to the District Munsif's Court, Tanuku, without routing the same through the District Judge, is only an irregularity. Even otherwise, since the petitioners have not taken this objection in the first instance, it must be deemed that the objection was waived and they cannot be permitted to raise it at a later stage. 2. The court held that the objection of limitation is not valid. 3. The court held that the legal representatives of defendant No. 60 were brought on record and consequently the decree is not a nullity. 4. The court held that the appeals against the orders of the District Munsif, Tanuki, do lie to the Sub ordinate Judges Court. 5. The court held that the lands are not under the occupation of tenants, i. e. , respondents 6 to 9, before the lower Court, and that they are not entitled for protection under the Tenancy Act.
Final Decision: All the civil revision petitions are dismissed with costs.
( 1 ) THESE four cases are connected and they can be disposed of together. The matters arise out of execution proceedings relating to the decree in O. S. No. 15 of 1945 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Amalapuram. The litigation has a long history and the necessary facts for the purpose of deciding the questions involved in those four cases are as follows:- One Vajjula Suryanarayana Murthy filed a reversionary suit O. S. No. 15 of 1945 for possession of various suit schedule properties including items 76 to 79 of the plaint schedule, Defendants 58 to 62 and 82 in the said suit claim to be in possession of these items and disputed the right of the plaintiff to get a decree against them. On the other hand, defendant No. 67 claimed the entire extent of these very same items as belonging to her exclusively. Therefore, there was a triangular contest. In the trial Court there was a decree in favour of the plaintiff as against defendants 58 to 62 and 82 and they were directed to put the plaintiff in possession of certain specified extents in their possession. The claim of defendant No. 67 was negatived and she was also asked to put the plaintiff in possession of the entire extent of these items. Against the decree of the trial Court appeals were filed in the Madras High Court A. S. No. 299 of 1947 was filed by defendants 58 to 62 and 82. It may be mentioned here that defendant No. 82 who is said to be the tenant was in possession of these Lands. A. S. No. 303 of 1947 was filed by defendant 67 who claimed the entire items for himself while defendants 58 to 62 and 82 claimed a portion to an extent of Ac. 4-79 cents out of these items in their own right as against the 67th defendant. The Madras High Court dismissed A. S. No. 299 of 1947 and allowed A. S. 303/47. Against the said judgment of the Madras High court the plaintiff preferred an appeal to the Supreme Court. The appeal was allowed and the Supreme Court remanded A. S. No. 303 of 1947 on 30-10-1964 to this Court for fresh disposal and same was dismissed by a Division Bench of the Court on 10-10-1966, granting a decree to the plaintiffs in respect of all the items viz. , items 76 to 79 to an extent of Ac. 15-111/2 cents including the lands held by defendants 58 to 62 and 82. It may be mentioned here that defendant No. 60 died on 1-7-1960. Before the Supreme Court defendants 58 to 62 were not parties. After the decision of the Andhra Pradesh High Court the decree-holder filed E. P. 7/67 before the Sub. Court, Amlapuram for transmission of the decree to the District Munsifs Court, Tanuku, in whose jurisdiction the properties are situated. It was accordingly transmitted. The decree-holder filed E. P. No. 50 of 1967 in the District Munsifs Court. Tanuku for delivery of possession of items 76 to 79 and portions of the said items have been delivered under the orders of the Court. Defendant No. 58 and the legal representative of defendant No. 60 and defendants 61 and 62 filed execution applications (E. A. Nos. 238, 239, 240 and 266 of 1967 in E. P. No. 50 of 1967) claiming title to the said extents of the property that the decree was not executable. The said applications were dismissed by the trial Court and they preferred appeals against the said orders (A. S. No. 157 to 160 of 67) and defendant No. 82 filed A. S. No. 187 of 1967 against the orders in E. P. No. 50 of 1967. The said appeals were allowed holding that these defendants were not before the Supreme Court, and they were not bound by the Judgment of the Supreme Court. Aggrieved by the said orders the decree-holder preferred C. M. A. Nos. 2 to 6 of 1969 and the said appeals were allowed and the orders of the trial Court dismissing S. As. 238 to 240 and 266 of 1967 and the order made in E. P. No. 50 of 1967 directing delivery of the property, were confirmed. The decree-holder in pursuance of the orders of the High Court filed E. P. No. 40 of 1971 to revive E. P. No. 50 of 1967, and the trial Court order
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
