Back
Andhra Pradesh High Court
Judges : ANANTA NARAYANA AYYAR, N.KUMARAYYA
Chinta Venkata Jagannatha Rao - Appellant
Versus
Dola Narannaidu - Respondent
Decided On : 04-22-66
MADRAS ESTATES ABOLITION ACT - SUIT FOR APPOINTMENT OF RECEIVER AND OTHER RELIEFS - WHETHER MAINTAINABLE - JURISDICTION OF CIVIL COURT - SECTIONS 3, 11, 12, 20, 64.
Fact of the Case:
Plaintiff filed a suit for appointment of a receiver regarding the suit properties and for other reliefs. The suit lands were allotted to the father of the plaintiff, as one land-holder. The other half was owned by various landholders including the first defendant. On 12/01/1951, the Zamindari of Talasamudram was notified under S. 3 of the Madras Estates Abolition (Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, (Madras Act XXVI of 1948) (hereafter referred to in this judgment as the Act ). On 22-7-1948, the 1st defendant wrote a letter (Ex. A-119), to the father of the plaintiff mentioning that some casuarina saplings in the suit land had perished and that they might be replaced by fresh planting. The father of the plaintiff wrote a reply (Ex. A-120), dated 22-7-1948, as follows:-"i will give you the Banjar land of about 50 acres in extent belonging to me. . to enable you to raise casuarina garden. I agree for the arrangement. . ". On 3-9-1948, the father of the plaintiff and the first defendant entered into a registered agreement (Ex. A-12) which recites as follows:- "combined agreement for cultivation of land for a period of 8 years entered into on 3-9-1948. It is settled by both of us that besides the casuarina plants previously planted by the first individual in the jeroyithi, dry, sand dibbas (mounds) and gayalu lands belonging to the first individual (the father of the plaintiff), the second individual (first defendant) should from now onwards raise casuarina plants in the remaining lands and that from now onwards the second individual himself should by his own efforts nurse and grow the said entire plants from this date to 3-9-1958 for a period of eight years and that at the end of the final year the first and second individuals should divide the said casuarina garden into two equal shares between themselves or if both the individuals should sell the said casuarina garden to others, they should divide equally in equal shares the proceeds realised by the sale of all the said casuarina trees remaining by then and that the second individual should, in case he raises wet crops in the land that can be used for wet cultivation out of the said lands, being enjoyment for four years, the said entire wet crops from the date when they begin to yield and that the second individual should deliver to the first individual ten putties of paddy worth about Rs. 100 per year towards the said crops from the end of the said four years till the end of the period. It is settled that the first individual should pay the taxes payable on the said land and that, on the expiry of the stipulated period, the second individual should deliver possession of the said lands to the first individual. On the expiry of the stipulated period, the value of the casuarina trees to be divided between them may be about Rs. 2,000. Ex. A-122 is an unregistered document (letter) purporting to be executed by the first defendant. It runs as follows:-"as regards the lands of the extent of Acs. 10-73 cts mentioned below and situate in Talasamudram village, you have agreed to give the same to me for a period of eight years for the purpose of my carrying out cultivation or leasing out the same to others as I please and it has been settled that I shall give to you, each year, 1/2 share of the produce derived from the said land. ". On 6-1-1950, the father of the plaintiff died and the plaintiff succeeded to his rights. On 12-1-1951, the Government made notification under S. 3 (1) (B) of the Madras Estates Abolition Act. On 26-7-1952, the Collector of Srikakulam made a reference to the Commissioner for Settlement of Estates (Board of Revenue) requesting for instructions. The Commissioner passed an order (Ex. A-16), dated 20-10-1952, as follows:- ". . . An unsurveyed extent of 299-29 acres in this village (Talasamudram) had been kept in the enjoyment of four landholders. There is casuarina tope in an extent of 180 acres of this land and mango tope in 10 acres. On 3-9-1948 (i. e. after 1-7-1945) one of the landholders (father of the plaintiff) of this estate leased out his share of the above land to another landholder (first defendant) of the same estate for a period of eight years. The Collector requests instructions pending the decision of the Settlement Officer on the question of the landholders eligibility whether to ryotwari patta for the lands under Section 15 of the Abolition Act, whether the land vests in the Government under Section 3 (b) of the Abolition Act and whether the case may be examined under Section 20 of the Abolition Act and whether Section 20 applies to lands for which ryotwari patta would be granted. The lands are in enjoyment of the landholders. They have raised casuarina trees and mango topes. According to the explanation to Sec. 12 of the Abolition Act, cultivate includes the planting and rearing of topes, gardens and orchards. So if the landholders could prove that they have been cultivating the lands themselves and that their cases fall under any of the clauses of Sec. 12 of the Abolition Act they are entitled to ryotwari patta. It appears to the Board that the landholders are prima facie entitled to ryotwari patta. The Collector is informed that it is unnecessary to disturb their possession till it is decided by the Settlement Officer that they are not entitled to ryotwari patta. It is only then they are not entitled to ryotwari patta and when they are dispossess under S. 3 (D) of the Abolition Act, the land would vest in Government from the date of taking over. The Collector is, therefore, informed that Sec. 20 (1) does not apply to lands for which the landholders are prima facie entitled to ryotwaripatta; and that the Government need not be interested in the right created in respect of such lands as ultimately ryotwari pattas will have to be issued to the landholders for them. ".
Finding of the Court:
The lower court found that the suit lands are not reserved for raising topes and horticulture governed by proviso to S. 3 and S. 12 of the Madras Estates Abolition Act; the suit land is not private land within the meaning of S. 6 (2) of the Madras Estates Land Act; the plaintiff has no title to the suit properties as a result of the Madras Estates Abolition Act; and the suit is not maintainable.
Issues: 1. Whether the suit lands are reserved for raising topes and horticulture governed by proviso to S. 3 and S. 12 of the Madras Estates Abolition Act? 2. Whether the suit land is private land within the meaning of S. 6 (2) of the Madras Estates Land Act? 3. Whether the plaintiff has no title to the suit properties as a result of the Madras Estates Abolition Act? 4. If issue 3 is in the affirmative whether the suit is not maintainable?
Ratio Decidendi: The plaintiff is not entitled to a ryotwari patta for the suit land. The plaintiff is not entitled to the relief of possession. The relief of accounting cannot be granted to the plaintiff as asked for by him in the plaint.
Final Decision: Appeal dismissed subject to what has been stated above in this judgment with costs of respondents 1,2, 3, to 5, 11, 13, 14, 16 and 17. Advocates fee so far as each of D-1, D-2 are concerned is fixed at Rs. 375. The other respondents will bear their own costs.
( 1 ) CHINTA Venkata Jagannadharao, as sole plaintiff, filed O. S. No. 26 of 1955 in the Sub-Court, Srikakulam praying for appointment of a receiver regarding the suit properties and for other reliefs. In the first instance, he impleaded Dola Narannaidu as the sole defendant. Subsequently, the latter was numbered as the first defendant due to the impleading of the other defendants namely, the State of Andhra Pradesh, as the second defendant, and the other defendants 3 to 27. The case came to be tried by the learned Additional District Judge, Srikakulam, as O. S. No. 2 of 1960 on his file. The latter, after full trial, dismissed the suit with costs. Thereupon the plaintiff filed this appeal.
( 2 ) TALASAMUDRAM is a Zamin village in the District Srikakulam. In O. S. No. 54 of 1925 on the file of the Sub-Court, Berhampur, for partition of the estate, certain lands inclusive of the suit lands were allotted to the father of the plaintiff, as one land-holder. The other half was owned by various landholders including the first defendant. Ex. A-1 is the judgment in that suit. Ex. A-2 is the written statement filed by Dola Yerrannaidu and another in that suit. Ex. A-2 (a) is the plaint schedule, Ex. A-3 is the final decree and Ex. A-4, Ex. A-5 are the schedules attached to the final decree (Ex. A-3 ). Exs. A-6 to A-11 are various documents which show the details of allotment by which the plaintiff came to be the owner of the suit lands as decree-holder. On 12/01/1951, the Zamindari of Talasamundram was notified under S. 3 of the Madras Estates Abolition (Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, (Madras Act XXVI of 1948) (hereafter referred to in this judgment as the Act ).
( 3 ) ON 22-7-1948, the 1st defendant wrote a letter (Ex. A-119), to the father of the plaintiff mentioning that some casuarina saplings in the suit land had perished and that they might be replaced by fresh planting. The first defendant made an offer as follows:-"due to lack of supervision, the plants in the garden have become entirely damaged. Some trees only remain here and there. If you should immediately arrange either to lease out the said portions or to give them on sharing system, it will facilitate planting of trees now. You may obtain the agreements, etc. , from Gopaish or if you want me to come, I will come. "the father of the plaintiff wrote a reply (Ex. A-120), dated 22-7-1948, as follows:-"i will give you the Banjar land of about 50 acres in extent belonging to me. . to enable you to raise casuarina garden. I agree for the arrangement. . "on 3-9-1948, the father of the plaintiff and the first defendant entered into a registered agreement (Ex. A-12) which recites as follows:- "combined agreement for cultivation of land for a period of 8 years entered into on 3-9-1948. It is settled by both of us that besides the casuarina plants previously planted by the first individual in the jeroyithi, dry, sand dibbas (mounds) and gayalu lands belonging to the first individual (the father of the plaintiff), the second individual (first defendant) should from now onwards raise casuarina plants in the remaining lands and that from now onwards the second individual himself should by his own efforts nurse and grow the said entire plants from this date to 3-9-1958 for a period of eight years and that at the end of the final year the first and second individuals should divide the said casuarina garden into two equal shares between themselves or if both the individuals should sell the said casuarina garden to others, they should divide equally in equal shares the proceeds realised by the sale of all the said casuarina trees remaining by then and that the second individual should, in case he raises wet crops in the land that can be used for wet cultivation out of the said lands, being enjoyment for four years, the said entire wet crops from the date when they begin to yield and that the second individual should deliver to the first individual ten putties of p
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
