HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH, HYDERABAD
E. VENKATESAM, J.
R. Venkataswamy Reddy and others - Appellants
Versus
Manikyam Muni Reddy and others - Respondents.
S.A. Nos. 270 & 634 of 1965
Decided on : 29-10-1968

The Civil Court has jurisdiction to grant relief of injunction to a person for possession of trees, even though a patta has not been granted to him by the Settlement Officer under the Act, if the person is prima facie entitled to a patta and his possession is recognized by the Government.

Headnote:

MADRAS ESTATES (ABOLITION, AND CONVERSION INTO RYOTWARI) ACT, 1948 - SECTIONS 3(D), 20, 21, 56 - SURVEY AND BOUNDARIES ACT - SECTION 14 - POSSESSION OF TREES - RIGHT TO ENJOYMENT - JURISDICTION OF CIVIL COURT - SCOPE OF SECTION 56 - RELIEF OF INJUNCTION - BOUNDARY DISPUTE - SURVEY OFFICER'S DECISION - VALIDITY - RIGHT TO QUESTION - SECTION 20 - APPLICABILITY.

Fact of the Case:

Plaintiff, Maniyam Muni Reddy, filed two suits seeking a declaration of his right to gather the usufruct of 33 tamarind trees and an injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with his enjoyment of those trees. The trees were located on specified paimash numbers within the limits of Kurabapally Kandriga, a hamlet of Thodatara of Chittoor in Bangarupalem Zamindari taluk. The plaintiff claimed the right under two takids granted to him by the Zamindar of Bangarupalem before the estate was taken over by the Government under the Madras Estates (Abolition, and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1948 (Act XXVI of 1948). The defendants resisted the suit, contending that 33 out of the 60 trees were not situate in Kurabapally Kandriga but in Govindareddipally, an lnam village, and that the plaintiff never had possession or enjoyment of those trees.

Finding of the Court:

The District Judge held that the plaintiff had no title to the usufruct of the tamarind trees as the title was with the Government and not with the plaintiff or the defendants. However, the District Judge granted an injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with the plaintiff's possession and enjoyment of all the 60 trees.

Issues: 1. Whether the Civil Court has jurisdiction to grant relief of injunction to the plaintiff for possession of the trees, even though a patta has not been granted to him by the Settlement Officer under the Act? 2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to question the correctness of the decision of the Assistant Director of Survey, Chittoor, regarding the boundary of the land on which the disputed trees stand, without obtaining a patta? 3. Whether the plaintiff's right to the enjoyment of the trees falls within the expression 'any right in any land' in Section 20 of the Act, and can be enforced against the Government?

Ratio Decidendi: 1. The jurisdiction of the Civil Court is not ousted by the Act or the Rules, though it may be that for the granting of a patta, the question as to who was the person who had the right of holding may incidentally be necessary. If the relief claimed is one of possession, neither the Settlement Office nor the Tribunal has jurisdiction to grant such a relief, and for granting it the question as to who is entitled to Kudivaram rights may have to be incidentally decided, such incidental decision is only to give relief as to possession, but it cannot bind the Settlement Officer or the Tribunal when they have to decide that question under the Act. 2. A party will not be entitled to question the decision of a Survey Officer unless he is able to establish that he is the owner of the property in respect of whose boundary the dispute has arisen. The plaintiff has not obtained a patta in respect of the land on which the disputed trees stand, and therefore, he is not entitled to canvass the correctness of the decision of the Assistant Director of Survey, Chittoor. 3. The plaintiff's right to the enjoyment of the trees falls within the expression 'any right in any land' in Section 20 of the Act, and can be enforced against the Government.

Final Decision: 1. The plaintiff is entitled to the relief of injunction against the defendants, restraining them from interfering with his possession and enjoyment of the 33 trees in dispute. 2. The plaintiff is not entitled to question the correctness of the decision of the Assistant Director of Survey, Chittoor, regarding the boundary of the land on which the disputed trees stand. 3. The plaintiff's right to the enjoyment of the trees falls within the expression 'any right in any land' in Section 20 of the Act, and can be enforced against the Government.