Back
Andhra Pradesh High Court
Judges : ALLADI KUPPUSWAMI, SRIRAMULU
Konduru Ramana Reddy - Appellant
Versus
State OF A.P. represented - Respondent
Decided On : 12-08-72
INAMS ABOLITION ACT - APPLICABILITY - VILLAGE CONSTITUTING ESTATE UNDER ESTATES LAND ACT - CIVIL COURT JURISDICTION - RES JUDICATA - ESTOPPEL - INAM FAIR REGISTER ENTRIES - INTERPRETATION - GRANT OF WHOLE VILLAGE - PRESUMPTION OF ESTATE STATUS - BURDEN OF PROOF - REVENUE AUTHORITIES' DECISION - BINDING EFFECT - SUIT FOR DECLARATION OF INAPPLICABILITY OF ACT - MAINTAINABILITY.
Fact of the Case:
Plaintiffs filed a suit for a declaration that the Andhra Pradesh Inams Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari Act (37/56) (referred to shortly in this judgment as Inams Abolition Act) is not applicable to the lands of Somavarapadu village. The case of the plaintiffs is that Somavarapadu village is an estate as defined by Sec. 3 (2) (d) of the Madras Estates land Act and hence the Inams Abolition act has no application.
Finding of the Court:
The Court held that the suit is maintainable in a Civil Court as the plaintiffs are challenging the very applicability of the Act. The decision of the Estates Abolition Tribunal in the prior proceedings that it is not an estate does not operate as res judicata in the present proceedings. Somavarapadu village is an estate within the meaning of Sec. 3 (2) (d) of the Estates Land act.
Issues: 1. Whether the Civil Court has jurisdiction to entertain the suit? 2. Whether the suit is premature? 3. Whether Somavarapadu village is an estate within the meaning of the Estates Land Act?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The suit is for a declaration that the Inams Abolition Act is not applicable to the lands of Somavarapadu village. The plaintiffs are challenging the very applicability of the Act. Sec. 14 of the Act which bars the jurisdiction of the Civil Court only provides that no suit or other proceedings shall be instituted in any Civil Court to set aside or modify any decision of the Tahsildar, the Revenue Court or the Collector. This is not a suit of such a nature to set aside any decision of the Tahsildar, the Revenue Court or the Collector made under the Act, but is a suit for a declaration that the Act does not apply and hence Sec. 14 has no application. 2. The plaintiffs' case is that the Act itself is not applicable to the lands in the village as the village constitutes an estate. It is not necessary for them to wait until the proceedings are taken. It is open to them to ask the Civil Court to give a declaration that the Act is not applicable to he lands in question and no proceedings can be taken under that Act. 3. A perusal of the Inam Fair register discloses that the grant is of a whole or at any rate a named village. The grant was of a named village. The existence of minor inams does not take away the character of the grant as an estate. The presumption under the explanation (1)to sec. 32 (d) of the estates Land Act arises. The area which forms the subject matter of the grant hill be deemed to be an estate even if it appears that of the grant are not included certain lands in the village which have before the grant of the named village been granted on serviee or othe tenure or have been reserved for communal purpose.
Final Decision: The appeal is allowed. The judgment of the lower Court is set aside. The plaintiffs' suit is decreed with costs throughout. The plaintiffs will have the declaration and the injunction sought for in the plaint, against the Government.
( 1 ) 1. Plaintiffs in O. S No. 57 of 1967 on the file of the Subordinate judge, Kavali, are the appellants before us. The material facts may briefly be stated plaintiffs are the ryots holding lands in Somavarapadu village.
( 2 ) IT is a whole Inam village and an "estate" as defined under the Madras estates Land Act. For the recovery of quit rent payable by the present Inamdar, defendant No. 2 in respect of the above village, the state Government, defendant No. 1. attached the said lands and the crops of the plaintiffs standing thereon. Defendant No. 1 is also trying to take proceedings under the Andhra Pradesh f Andhra Area) Inams (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act (No. 37 of 1956) (hereinafter called the inams Abolition Act) for division and apportionment of the plaintiffs lands as between them and the present Inamdar. defendant Not 2. Since Somavarapadu is not an Inam land but an "estate" as defined under the Madras Estates Land Act. the proceedings initiated against the plaintiffs, by defendant No. 1. are i legal and without jurisdiction. With those averments, the plaintiffs filed 0. S. No. 57 of 1967 in the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Kavali for a declaration that the Inams Abolition Act was not applicable to the somavarapadu village, and for the grant of a permanent injunction restraining the 1st defendant from attaching or selling their lands or the crops or other movables, for the recovery of the arrears of quit rent due from defendant No. 2.
( 3 ) THE defendants stoutly opposed the suit. According to them, somavarapadu was not an "estate. " The Estates Abolition Tribunal held that the said village was not an "estate" and the same was confirmed by the High Court in Writ Petition No, 1252 of 1961. That decision operated as res judicata under Section 11 of the Civil Procedure code. Having not raised an objection to the Notification fixing the assessment under the Inams Assessment Act of 1955, the plaintiffs are estopped from now raising any objection to the same. The Civil court s jurisdiction to make an enquiry in this regard is barred under sections 14 and 15 of the Inams Abolition Act.
( 4 ) ON those leadings, the frial Court framed appropriate isses and, after considering the evidence, adduced by both the parties, held that (i) Somavarapadu is not an "estate" but an Inam land to which the provisions of the lnams Abolition Act are attracted, and the proceedings taken up by defendant No. 1 are legal (ii) since the Government, defendant No. 1 did not appoint any Tahsildar to make an enquiry and to grant Pattas to the persons entitled, the suit is premature and the plaintiffs have no cause of action (iii) the decision of the Estates Abolition Tribunal, which was confirmed by the High Court in Writ Petition No. 1251 of 1961, operated as resjudicata under Section 11 of the Civil Procedure Code ; and (iv) a mere suit for declaration that the provisions of the Inams Abolition act are not applicable, is not maintainable, as the plaintiffs did not specify their lands or the rights held by them in such lands.
( 5 ) IN view of those findings, the trial court dismissed the plaintiff s suit with costs. Hence this appeal by the plaintiffs. The learned counsel, Sri N. Subba Reddy, appearing for the appellants, raised the following four contentions :- (1) The provisions of the Inams Abolition Act do not prescribe any machinery to decide the question whether a particular village is, or is not an "estate". There is no provision under the said Act which bars the jurisdiction of a Civil Court to decide that question. (2) If the trial court was of the view that the plaintiffs, suit was premature, it should not have given a decision on merits. (3) The decision of the trial court on merits is erroneous, in view of the entries in the Inams Fair Register and Diglot Reports, and (4) The decision of the Estates Abolition Tribunal is wrong on merits and is not binding on Civil Courts, and it does not operate as res ju
AI
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
