1. The second appeal is directed against the judgment and decree in A.S. No.72 of 2005 on the file of the IV Additional District Judge (Fast Track Court) at Khammam, dated 28-09-2010.

2. The parties are referred to herein as they are arrayed before the trial Court.

3. The plaintiff sued the defendant for declaration of her title over the suit schedule property of Ac.3.29 guntas in survey Nos.124 and 125 of Lingapalem claiming the same to have been gifted to her under a gift deed, dated 22-06-1988 by Ganta Savitramma. The plaintiff claimed the land to be under her cultivation and to have been leased out to the defendant in 1998 for one year for a rent of 10 bags of paddy per acre. The defendant was claimed to have not vacated the land and assaulted the plaintiff while not paying the rent, on which proceedings ensued before the revenue authorities and also before the police leading to an order by the station house officer of Vemsur police station on 13-08-1999 not to disturb the possession of the defendant till his eviction by due process of law. In Criminal R.C. No.1028 of 1999, the High Court directed the Mandal Revenue Officer to dispose of the matter after an opportunity to both parties and against the order of the Mandal Revenue Officer thereafter, the plaintiff filed Criminal Revision Petition No.13 of 2000 before Sessions Judge, Khammam, which was allowed. The defendant filed Criminal R.C. No.1020 of 2000 before the High Court against that order and this Court by order, dated 20-11-2000 ordered the parties to approach Civil Court for suitable remedies. On the order passed by the Mandal Revenue Officer to enter the name of the defendant in respect of the land in the revenue records on 05-06-2001, W.P. No.13955 of 2002 was filed by the plaintiff, which is pending before the High Court. The order of the Mandal Revenue Officer was the subject of interim suspension by this Court. Consequently, the plaintiff sought for declaration of her ownership, consequential delivery of vacant possession by evicting the defendant, mesne profits, past and future, and costs.

4. The defendant in his written statement contended that on the allegation of the plaintiff that there was relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties, the remedies provided under the Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1950 (for short “the Act”) should have been resorted to, but not a remedy before Civil Court, which has no jurisdiction. The defendant claimed that his mother Savitramma never had any title in the subject land and she and the brother of the defendant had no right to execute any gift deed in favour of the plaintiff. The mother of the defendant Savitramma is an illiterate and the gift deed obtained fraudulently with undue influence is null and void. The plaintiff can acquire no right, title or interest in the property under the said document and in pursuance of a family arrangement, the properties of Chennaiah including the suit property were gifted to the father of the defendant and the properties are being enjoyed by the defendant, his father and his brothers. The father and brothers and the defendant effected a partition in May, 1999, in which Ac.2.00 in R.S. No.124 fell to the share of the defendant along with other items, while the remaining Ac.2.00 of the suit land fell to the share of the father of the defendant along with other items. The defendant’s father gifted the said Ac.2.00 in R.S. Nos.124 and 125 to the defendant orally. Thus, the defendant is in exclusive possession and enjoyment of the suit land as absolute owner and desired the suit to be dismissed.

5. While so, the defendant filed I.A. No.108 of 2005 claiming that the issue of jurisdiction should be decided as a preliminary issue in view of the order of the High Court in Criminal R.C. No.1020 of 2000. He contended that the Civil Court has no jurisdiction in view of a dispute regarding tenancy also being involved. The plaintiff clai