Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
M.VENKATA RAMANA, J.
M.Ramakrishna Prasad & Ors - Appellant
Versus
K.Singaiah, Vijayawada & Ors - Respondent
Appeal Suit No. 683 of 1999
Decided On : 23-03-2020
A.P. Land Reforms (Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings) Act, 1973 - Land Reforms Tribunal, Narasaraopet under Act 1 of 1973 - Section 26 - Suit was instituted when the appellants were minors represented by their next friend - During pendency of the suit, the appellants attained majority - Next friend, who represented them, in the suit when they were minors, continued the suit proceedings on their behalf, as their power of attorney holder - Suit was laid by the appellants for partition of the plaint schedule properties, to divide and allot three shares together to the appellants and for costs - Held, It is explicit that Section 26 clearly bars any suit or application to question an order or proceedings under A.P. Act 1 of 1973 - Lands affected by the proceedings under A.P. Act 1 of 1973 viz., items 2,3,5 and 15 to 18 cannot be subject matter of partition among the appellants and the respondent no.1 - Further, these lands were not available for partition by the date of filing the suit itself - Thus, no relief for partition and division of these items could have been sought by the appellants and rightly, it was rejected by the learned trial Judge - Appellants were granted the relief by the trial Court rightly only with reference to unaffected items under A.P. Act 1 of 1973 and which were available for the family to effect a division among the eligible members - In view of the findings recorded above, when the learned trial Judge took into consideration the material on record in right perspective and had drawn appropriate conclusions therein, they cannot be interfered with - Consequently this appeal has to be dismissed with costs of the respondents 3 and 5 to 7 - Appeal is dismissed.
Facts of the Case:
Respondents 1 and 2 are the parents of appellants 1 to 3. The appellants 1 and 3 are gainfully employed living in different places, being the sons of respondents 1 and 2. The second appellant is the daughter of respondents 1 and 2 and after marriage she began to live with her husband at Chennai. The respondents 3 to 7 are the Government Authorities Belonging to Revenue Department.
Finding of the Court:
It is explicit that Section 26 clearly bars any suit or application to question an order or proceedings under A.P. Act 1 of 1973 - Lands affected by the proceedings under A.P. Act 1 of 1973 viz., items 2,3,5 and 15 to 18 cannot be subject matter of partition among the appellants and the respondent no.1 - Further, these lands were not available for partition by the date of filing the suit itself - Thus, no relief for partition and division of these items could have been sought by the appellants and rightly, it was rejected by the learned trial Judge - Appellants were granted the relief by the trial Court rightly only with reference to unaffected items under A.P. Act 1 of 1973 and which were available for the family to effect a division among the eligible members - In view of the findings recorded above, when the learned trial Judge took into consideration the material on record in right perspective and had drawn appropriate conclusions therein, they cannot be interfered with - Consequently this appeal has to be dismissed with costs of the respondents 3 and 5 to 7
Result: Appeal is dismissed.
JUDGMENT :
1. This appeal is directed against the decree and judgment in O.S.No.297 of 1988 dated 28.11.1998 of the court of learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Narasaraopet.
2. The plaintiffs are the appellants. The defendants are the respondents.
3. During pendency of this appeal, the 1st respondent died. A memo was also filed on behalf of the appellants that his L.Rs. being the appellants as well as the second respondent were already on record and it was recorded.
4. The suit was instituted when the appellants were minors represented by their next friend Sri M.Apparao, son of Sri Venkatadri, resident of Jaggapuram, Edlapadu Mandal, Guntur District. During pendency of the suit, the appellants attained majority. The next friend, who represented them, in the suit when they were minors, continued the suit proceedings on their behalf, as their power of attorney holder.
5. The respondents 1 and 2 are the parents of appellants 1 to 3. The appellants 1 and 3 are gainfully employed living in different places, being the sons of respondents 1 and 2. The second appellant is the daughter of respondents 1 and 2 and after marriage she began to live with her husband at Chennai. The respondents 3 to 7 are the Government Authorities Belonging to Revenue Department.
6. The respondents 1,2 and 4 remained ex parte in the suit.
7. The suit was laid by the appellants for partition of the plaint schedule properties, to divide and allot three shares together to the appellants and for costs.
8. Item nos. 1 to 7 are agricultural lands, whereas item no.8 is a house along with a site and item No.9 is a vacant site. Items 1 to 9 are located at kavuru village whereas Items 10 to 18 are in Jaggapuram, H/o. Jaladi.
9. It is desirable to consider the case set up by the appellants and contesting respondents in their pleadings in the suit.
10. The appellants stated in the plaint that the plaint schedule properties are their joint family properties belonging to themselves as well as the 1st respondent wherein every one has 1/4th share. They further averred that the 1st respondent being their father was lazy and acted in a most negligent manner in conduct of the proceedings under A.P.Land Reforms (Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings) Act, 1973 (for short, ‘Act 1 of 1973’), detrimental to their interest. They also averred that the respondents 3 to 7 were trying to interfere with their possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule properties wrongfully under the colour of orders in C.C.No.1919 of 1975 of the Land Reforms Tribunal, Narasaraopet under Act 1 of 1973 in respect of Ac.11-40 cents out of the plaint schedule lands, even though the orders so passed are void and without jurisdiction. They further averred that they have been claiming their right and interest to the plaint schedule properties and manner in which the nature of these lands was considered inappropriately by the above Tribunal without treating them as dry lands, since the property did not vest in the respondents 3 to 7 and did not determine or pay the compensation for the alleged excess lands, which were not taken over, they are entitled for their share. They further contended that the Civil Court has jurisdiction to entertain the suit and Section 26 of Act 1 of 1973 did not bar maintainability of the suit. They further averred that since conduct of the 1st respondent resulted in deprivation of their property, it shall be treated as alienation and therefore, the suit for partition could be laid.
11. Resisting the claim of the appellants, a written statement was filed by the 5th respondent adopted by the respondents 3,6 and 7.
12. In the written statement while denying the averments in the plaint it was stated that in view of Section 26 of A.P. Act 1 o 1973, the suit as filed could not be maintained, since the Civil Court has no jurisdiction to reopen and reassess the matter, which has already been decided before the competent Tribunal under the above Act. A reference was also made as to the steps taken in
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
