Back
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
KRISHNA RAO, J.
Dhulipalla Ramayya
Versus
Kota Brahmayya
Civil Revn. Petn. No. 123 of 1953 from order of Dist. Munsif, Nellore
Decided On : 19-04-1957
CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE - JURISDICTION - SUIT FOR PARTITION AND RECOVERY OF POSSESSION OF LANDS - LANDS TAKEN OVER BY GOVERNMENT UNDER MADRAS ESTATES (ABOLITION AND CONVERSION INTO RYOTWARI) ACT - JURISDICTION OF CIVIL COURT NOT BARRED - MADRAS ESTATES (ABOLITION AND CONVERSION INTO RYOTWARI) ACT (XXVI OF 1948), SS. 3 (3), 3 (10) (B), 3 (16), 11, 13 (B) (III), 15, 56.
Fact of the Case:
Plaintiff filed a suit for partition and recovery of possession of his one-third share in the plaint lands. The 1st defendant contended that the Civil Court had no jurisdiction to try the suit as the lands were taken over by the Government under the Madras Estates (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1948.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the Civil Court had jurisdiction to try the suit. The court observed that the plaintiff's case was that the suit lands were private lands and that the dispute in the suit resolved itself to a determination of the question whether the suit lands were private lands or ryoti lands. However, the court found that the plaint allegations did not bring the suit lands within any of the categories of private land set out in S. 3 (10) (b) of the Madras Estates Land Act, and therefore they would be ryoti lands within the meaning of S. 3 (16). The court further observed that the joint shrotriumdars would be entitled to a ryotwari patta in respect of the lands under S. 13 (b) (III) of the Madras Estates (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1948. The court also held that the defence of the 1st defendant that he was entitled to a ryotwari patta under S. 11 of the Act did not deprive the Civil Court of jurisdiction. The court observed that the right of possession and the rights incidental to possession of persons who might be entitled to a ryotwari patta in respect of the land were not taken away but were preserved by the Act. The court further held that S. 15 of the Act, which charged the Settlement Officer with the duty of examining the nature and history of all the lands in respect of which the landholder claims a ryotwari patta, did not impliedly bar the jurisdiction of the Civil Courts. The court observed that the purpose of deciding whether a ryotwari patta should be granted was to determine whether the Government may take possession of the land, and if the relief sought did not bear on the Government's right to take possession, it could not be said that the jurisdiction of the Civil Courts was impliedly barred. The court also held that S. 56 of the Act, which provided that disputes as to who is the lawful ryot in respect of any holding shall be decided by the Settlement Officer, did not apply to the present case as the plaintiff's case was that the suit lands were not a holding at all, but had been in the possession and enjoyment of the joint landholders.
Issues: Whether the Civil Court had jurisdiction to try the suit for partition and recovery of possession of lands taken over by the Government under the Madras Estates (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1948.
Ratio Decidendi: The jurisdiction of the Civil Court is not barred in respect of lands taken over by the Government under the Madras Estates (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1948, unless the relief sought bears on the Government's right to take possession of the land.
Final Decision: The revision petition was dismissed with costs.
Although the lands were jointly owned and enjoyed by them, the 1st defendant began to assert exclusive title and possession in himself in respect of both the lands on the ground that he had been let into possession and cultivated them as a ryot. He filed two suits against his coshrotriumdars and their lessees for recovery of possession under S. 9 of the Specific Relief Act; O. S. No. 611 of 1949 in respect of a portion measuring Ac. 3-16 cents in S. No. 160 and O. S. No. 608 of 1949 in respect of the entire Survey No. 161. These suits were decreed on 28-11-1950 and the 1st defendant has been subsequently trying to get possession of the entire Survey Nos. 160 and 161. On these allegations the plaintiff claimed partition and recovery of possession of his share in the lands.
The 1st defendant in his written statement denied that he was a co-owner along with the plaintiff and defendants 2 to 5 and contended that he had become solely entitled to occupancy rights as a ryot in respect of the lands. He contended further that the Court of the District Munsif had no jurisdiction to try the suit. This contention was founded on the fact that the inam estate of Kuricherlapad shrotrium was taken over by the Government on 1-10-1951 under the Madras
Estates (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act XXVI of 1948. His position was that only the special forums set up by the Act had jurisdiction to try the subject-matter of the suit.
2. Sri M. S. Ramachandra Rao, the learned counsel for the petitioner, argued that the plaintiffs case is that the suit lands are private lands and chat the dispute in the suit resolves itself to a determination of the question whether the suit lands are private lands or ryoti lands. But he hag been unable to show how on the plaint allegations, the suit lands can possibly be said to be private lands, as defined in S. 3 (10) of the Madras Estates Land Act, cl. (b) of which is the relevant clause. According to the plaint, they were merely Anadhinam or unoccupied lands which were brought under cultivation between 1940 and 1949. -
The expression anadhinam does not imply that it is domain or home-farm land of the landholder and therefore private land-Gopalaswamy Ayyangar v. Athamanathaswami Dev, 1957-1 Mad LJ 104 (A). It merely means unoccupied land and the plaint allegations are in effect that the suit lands were cultivated lands which were brought under cultivation by the landholders between 1940 and 1949. The plaint allegations dp,, not bring them within any of the categories of private land set out in S. 3 (10) (b). It follows] that they would be ryoti lands within the meaning of S, 3 (16). On the plaint allegations, the! joint shrotriumdars would be entitled to a ryotwari patta in respect of the lands under S. 13 (b) (III) of the Madras Estates (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1948.
The defence of the 1st defendant is in effect that he is entitled to a ryotwari patta under S. 11 of that Act. The question is whether on
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
