Back
Andhra Pradesh High Court
Judges : S.OBUL REDDY, VENKATESWARA RAO
Rsamchander Naik - Appellant
Versus
Linga Ramachanderiah (died) L.Bhoiavva - Respondent
Decided On : 09-15-70
TENANCY ACT - SECTION 19, 28, 32, 67, 68 - SHIKMIDAR RIGHTS - LIMITATION ACT, 1908 - ARTICLE 120 - CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE, 1908 - ORDER II, RULE 2 - HYDERABAD LAND REVENUE ACT - SECTION 2(1)(B), 2(13), 67, 67-A, 68 - HYDERABAD ASAMI SHIKMIS ACT, 1945 - SECTION 2(C) - RIGHT TO SUE - ACCRUAL - UNEQUIVOCAL THREAT - SHIKMIDAR - REQUIREMENTS - POSSESSION OF LAND - AGREEMENT PERTAINING TO PERIOD OF POSSESSION - EVICTION OF SHIKMIDAR - JURISDICTION OF TAHSILDAR.
Fact of the Case:
Plaintiff, a tenant, filed a suit for a declaration of his right to possession of the lands in dispute and also for a permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with his possession. The suit was decreed by the trial court and confirmed by the appellate court. The defendant filed an appeal and revision petitions against the judgment and decree. The plaintiff also filed a notice to the defendant stating that he had been in possession of the suit lands as a tenant for more than 36 years and that he had sustained loss due to the defendant's attempts to dispossess him. The defendant sent a petition to the Tahsildar complaining that the plaintiff did not pay him rent for five years. The plaintiff filed a counter to this petition contending that he incurred heavy loss on account of the landlord's attempts to dispossess him and that the Tahsildar has no jurisdiction to order payment of rent for more than three years. The defendant sent a notice to the plaintiff terminating his tenancy on the ground that he was in arrears of rent for six years. He followed it up by filing another petition before the Tahsildar for eviction of the plaintiff for alleged default in payment of rent for a continuous period of more than three years. Both the petitions were disposed of on the same day. In the earlier petition for arrears of rent, the Tahsildar granted a "decree" to the landlord and directed the tenant to pay the landlord or credit into the Tahsil O. S. Rs. 1,324. 00 representing the rent for three years commencing from 1955. In the other petition for eviction also, he passed a decree for Rs. 882-12 and directed the P. T. (petitioner tenant) to pay that amount to the owner or credit the same into the Tahsil within 15 days. Both the orders were confirmed in appeal by the Collector.
Finding of the Court:
1. The suit is governed by Article 120 of the Limitation Act, 1908, and is not barred by limitation as the right to sue accrued only when there was an unequivocal threat by the defendant to infringe the right asserted by the plaintiff in the suit. 2. The plaintiff is an Asami Shikmi and has been in possession of the suit lands for a continuous period of long over 12 years. 3. There was no agreement between the plaintiff and the pattadar pertaining to the period of possession. 4. The plaintiff has acquired Shikmidari rights in the suit lands even by 1954. 5. A Shikmidar is liable to be evicted in a civil court under Section 68 of the Hyderabad Land Revenue Act if he does not pay the rent. 6. The Tahsildar has no jurisdiction to direct the eviction of the plaintiff from the suit lands notwithstanding his having acquired Shikmidari rights in them by virtue of section 67 of the Hyderabad Land Revenue Act.
Issues: 1. Whether the suit is barred by limitation? 2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the benefits of Section 67 of the Hyderabad Land Revenue Act? 3. Whether the plaintiff is liable to be evicted from the suit lands notwithstanding his having acquired Shikmidari rights in them? 4. Whether the Tahsildar has jurisdiction to direct the eviction of the plaintiff from the suit lands?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The right to sue accrues for the purpose of article 120 when there is an accrual of the right asserted in the suit and equivocal threat by the other party to infringe it. 2. The requirements of Section 67 of the Hyderabad Land Revenue Act are satisfied in this case so as to entitle the plaintiff to the declaration that he is a Shikmidar in respect of the suit lands. 3. A Shikmidar is liable to be evicted in a civil court under Section 68 of the Hyderabad Land Revenue Act if he does not pay the rent. 4. The Tahsildar has no jurisdiction to direct the eviction of the plaintiff from the suit lands notwithstanding his having acquired Shikmidari rights in them by virtue of section 67 of the Hyderabad Land Revenue Act.
Final Decision: 1. The appeal and revision petitions are dismissed. 2. The judgment and decree in O. S. 41/59 are confirmed. 3. C. R. P. Nos. 369 and 2126 of 1969 are set aside and the petitions filed by the defendant for eviction of the plaintiff are remanded to the Tahsildar, Medchel, for fresh disposal in accordance with law and in the light of the decision in C. C. C. A. No. 36/64.
( 1 ) C. C. C. A. No. 36 of 1964 is directed against the judgment and decree in O. S. 41/59 on the file of the First Additional Judge. City Civil Court, Hyderabad, while the revision petitions arise out of proceedings under the Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act (XXI of 1950), which will hereinafter be referred to as "tenancy Act. Defendant No. 1 in the suit, who was also the petitioner in the proceedings under the Tenancy Act, has preferred the appeal and the revision petitions.
( 2 ) THE subject -matter of this lsitigations is 303 acres of pasture land knows as Barman Cheru Kancha" and comprised in S. Nos. 261 to 279 of Jeedimetla village. Late Govinda Naik. the father of the defendants, was the original pattadar of this land and it is also common ground that she inducted the plaintiff into possession of the same as tenant in aborts the year 1918 or 1919.
( 3 ) IN September, 1952, the plaintiff filed O. S. 46/53-54 in the Court of the Munsif-Magistrate, East. Hyderabad against the 1st defendant. Rsamchadra Naik, and four others for a declaration of his right to possession of the lands in dispute and also for a permanent injunction restraining the defendants therein from interfering with his possession. claiming to be a protected tenant. This suit was declared in part by the Trial Court and ax prayed for by the appellate Court. This decree was confirmed by the High Court in S. A. No. 201/2 1954-55 on 23-3-1960 with only a slight modification that "the appellant (Ramchandra Naik) would be entitled to such remedy as against the tenant respondent which he may have under the tenancy Act". On the same day, the High Court dismissed C. R. P. No. 1868 of 1967 preferred by Ramachandra Naik with the result that an order made by the Tahsildar. Medical, on the 9/10/1954 directing the grant of a tenancy certificate to the plaintiff in respect of the suit lands became final.
( 4 ) SHORTLY after filing O. S. 46/ the plaintiff issued a notice, Ex. A-10 dated 14-10-1954 to Ramachandra snaiks stating that he has been in possession of the suit lands as a tenant for more than 36 years by then. that as a result of the unlawful attempts made by the latter to dispossess him of the lands. he sustained loss to the tune of several thousands of rupees and that even after setting off the cuist payable by him to the landlord, a sum of Rs. 704-4-0 was still due outstanding from the latter on account of the damage caused to him and that legal action would be instated for recovery of the said sum if it was not paid within two weeks from the date of receipt of the notice. No reply was sent to this notice by Ramachandra Naik. But in June 1957, he sent a petition by post to the Tahsildar, Medchel complaining that the plaintiff did not pay him rent at the agreed rate of Rs. 1,200. 00 per annuls for five years before then. The plaintiff filed counter to this petition contending sambaing other things that he incurred heavy loss on account of the several attempts made by the landlord to dispossess him and that the Tahsildar has. in any view, no jurisdiction to order payment of rent for more than three years. Pending disposal of this petition, Ramachandra Naik sent a notice, Ex. B-4 dated 7-6-1958 under S. 19 of the Tenancy Act to the plaintiff, terminating his tenancy on the ground that he was in arrears of rent for six years before then. He followed it up by filing another, petition before the Tahsildar. Medical, under Sections 19, 28 and 32 of the Tenancy Act for eviction of the plaintiff for alleged default in payment of rent for a continuous period of more than three years. The plaintiff did not deny in his counter to this applications that he was in arrears of rent and simply pleaded that he cannot be considered defaulter as the loss which he sustained as a result of the landlords high-handed attempts to dispossess him of the property was far in excess of the rent which was due to him. Both the petitions fi
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
