RAMACHANDRA RAO, J.

( 1 ) THE question, whether the ordinary Civil Court has jurisdiction to entertain a suit between persons not belonging to Scheduled Tribes, in respect of lands situated in a Scheduled Area of Telangana Area in the State of Andhra Pradesh arises for consideration in this batch of appeals.

( 2 ) THE question arises this way. The appeal A. S. No. 663/1974 has been preferred against the judgment and decree of the learned District Judge, Adilabad, in O. S. No. 1 of 1966. The suit lands are situated in Utnoor village which is a scheduled area. The suit O. S. 1/1966 was filed by the plaintiffs the respondents herein for a declaration of their title to the said lands and to the office of Mutsaddi or in the alternative for a declaration of their right to a 4/5th share in the said lands and for joint possession of the same along with the first defendant. A claim was also made for recovery of past and future profits. The suit was decreed declaring the title of the plaintiffs and defendants to certain shares and that they were entitled to be in joint possession of the suit properties along with the first defendant. The past and future profits were directed to be ascertained in a separate enquiry. The defendants preferred the appeal A. S. 663 of 1974.

( 3 ) IN this appeal it is contended for the appellants that the District Court, Adilabad, had no jurisdiction to entertain the suit as the suit lands are situated in Utnoor, which is a Scheduled area, that it is only the competent Agency Courts constituted under the Agency Rules that have jurisdiction to entertain the suit and therefore the judgment and decree of the lower Court are null and void.

( 4 ) THE plaintiffs-respondents filed an application E. P. 1/1975 on the file of the Court of the District Judge, Adilabad for execution of the decree in O. S. No. 1/1966. The defendants - the appellants herein-raised an objection in the lower Court that the decree passed by the District Curt was null and void on the ground that the said Court had no jurisdiction to entertain the suit in respect of lands situated in Utnoor, a notified scheduled area, and therefore the decree was not executable. This objection was upheld by the learned District Judge, and the execution petition dismissed. The plaintiffs have now preferred the appeal C. M. A. 360/1976.

( 5 ) SECOND Appeals 777 and 778 of 1975 arise out of two suits O. S. Nos. 448 and 449 of 1971 on the file of the Court of the District Munsif, Adilabad, for specific performance of two agreements of sale or in the alternative for recovery of the amounts of sale consideration. Both the suits were decreed by the trial Court for recovery of consideration but were dismissed with regard to the relief of specific performance. In the second appeals also the question arises whether the Civil Courts have jurisdiction to entertain the suits in respect of lands situated in a scheduled area. When the second appeals came up for hearing before our learned brother K. A. Muktadar, J. , reliance was placed by the appellants therein on the decision of our learned brother M. Ramachandra Raju, J. , in A. Gopala Rao v. B. Kabbaiah (1975-1 Andh WR 60), where the learned Judge took the view that there is nothing in the Agency Rules from which it could be said that the jurisdiction of the Civil Courts was ousted and that therefore the Civil Courts are not barred from trying suits relating to lands situated in a scheduled area. Our learned brother K. A. Muktadar, J. , was not inclined to agree with the view taken by our learned brother M. Ramachandra Raju, J. , and hence referred the appeals for consideration by a Bench.

( 6 ) AS the main objection to the jurisdiction of the Civil Court is based upon the Andhra Pradesh Agency Rules as extended to the Telangana Area, it is necessary to trace the history of the said Rules and their application to the Telangana Area.

( 7 ) FROM the earliest times, Statutes were enacted barring completely or partially the ap

Click Here to Read the rest of this document