1968 Supreme(AP) 145

Andhra Pradesh High Court
Judges : K.MADHAVA REDDY, N.KUMARAYYA
VECHALAPU RAMULU (DIED) - Appellant
Versus
VECHALAPU APPALANAIDU - Respondent
Decided On : 08-21-68

The jurisdiction of the Civil Court is not excluded when special forums could not grant reliefs prayed for in a civil suit, as the plaintiff cannot be required to split up his cause of action and seek redress partly in a civil court and partly in a special tribunal.

Headnote:

ESTATES ABOLITION ACT - JURISDICTION OF CIVIL COURT - SUIT FOR RECOVERY OF POSSESSION AND PROFITS - WHETHER BARRED - C. P. C. SEC. 9.

Fact of the Case:

The plaintiffs and the defendants are Velamas by caste and residents of Deekshitulu Agraharam in Veeravilli taulk of Visakhapatnam district. It is common ground that Bhamidipati bapanna and Bhamidipati Suryanarayana had each one Pathika (1/4th) and yanamandram Kameswararao had two Pathikas (2/4) of wet and dry lands situated under Nakkellavani Cheruva of Deekshitula agraharam village, which had become an estate by reason of the Madras Estates Land (Third Amendment) act of 1936. According to the plaintiff s, the 1st plaintiff, the father of the 2nd plaintiff and the father of the 3rd plainliff obtained lease of the said lands from the above land holders in or about the year 1917 and since then had been enjoying the said lands paying cists to the members of the family of the inamdars. In or about the year 1932, they put the defendants in possession of the suit lands,which cons:st of only one Pathika belonging to Bhamidipati Bapanna, melwaramdar, under and agreement that they should cultivate the lands as sub-tenants and should pay kist to them at the rate of Rs. 60 per year. Of the three other pathikas, the plaintiffs reserved one pathika for their own cultivation and leased out one pathika to Vechalapu Sanyasulu and another to Vechalapu Sanni, on the same conditions. We are not however, concerned with these Pathikas for the purposes of the present proceeding. All these people were cultivating the said lands and paying rents regularly up to 1949. On April 13,1949, however, a fresh kadapa was executed by the defendants family manager, Vechalapu Pedda Buddeppa, and also Vechalapu sanyasulu and Vechalapu Sanni, agreeing to pay kist at an enhanced rate of rs. 80/- per pathika. The amount was agreed to be paid by Kartika Suddha 15 of the year 1949-50. After executing this lease deed, the defendants did not prove themselves as true as their word. They failed to pay the agreed lease amount. When demands were made they bided their time and finally denied the very right of the plaintiff s setting up occupancy rights in themselves.

Finding of the Court:

The main Points raised by the learned counsel for the appellants, Sri p. Kodandaramayya, are that the Civil Court has no jurisdiction to declare occupancy rights or to pronounce on the question as to which of the parties is a lawful ryot, as these matters are within the exclusive cognizance of the spe. cial forums under the provision of sec. 56 of the Estates Abolition Act, and the jurisdiction of the Civil Court is therefore barred. It was further urged that at any rate, on the date when the village had become an estate, the defendants were in possession of the lands and hence they had obtained occupancy rights and their possession cannot, therefore be interfered with, nor can a plea of estoppel be set up against them. We now proceed to consider how far these pleas are tenable. The first ground relates to jurisdiction. The contention is that as the dispute as to who is a lawful tenant is exclusively determinable by special tribunals under the clear provision of Section 56 of the Estates Abolition Act, the suit for that purpose in a Civil Court is necessarily barred. It is not easy to see why a suit, otherwise competent, instituted for several reliefs which cannot be granted by the special tribunals, should be considered to be beyond the cognizance of the civil court merely because a certain question within the cognizance of the special tribunal is incidentally an issue in the suit.

Issues: None

Ratio Decidendi: The jurisdiction of the Civil Court in relation to the above questions, therefore, cannot be open to doubt. It is manifest that the suit is essentially in ejectment of a tenant and recovery of rent of the amounts due for use and occupation of the lands. Both these questions are beyond the cognizance of any special forum and are within the cognizance of the Civil courts. Both the Courts have found that the 1st plaintiff and the fathers of plaintiffs 2 and 3 got landl from the land holders on lease, that they were in actual enjoyment of the same for years thereafter, that the defendants were inducted into possession by them as lessees that they were payirg renl up to 1949 and that a kadapa was executed in that year. These findings are based on evidence both oral and documentary, which is clinching. It is therefore, fairly established that the defendants are lessees of the plaintiffs and their present possession is attributable to the plaintiffs and not in any sense of the term, to the landholders. In that case, the defendants are precluded from denying the right of the plaintiffs and further they cannot successfully set up any claim of acquisition of occupancy rights which could ordinarily be acquired by a tenant from the landholder.

Final Decision: Appeal against the decree of the Court of the Additional District Judge visakhapatnam in Appeal Suit No. 65 of 1961 preferred against the decree of the Court of the District Munsiff of Ghodavaram in Original Suit No. 330 of 1957.