Back
2022 Supreme(AP) 706
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
BANDARU SYAMSUNDER, J.
P. Rajeswari - Petitioner
Versus
P. Jeeyangar Mutt Tirupati & Others - Respondents
S.A. No. 636 of 2001
Decided On : 13-10-2022
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner: O. Manoher Reddy.
Disputes between landlords and tenants are governed by the A.P.(Andhra Area) Tenancy Act, 1956, and the civil court lacks jurisdiction to entertain such disputes.
Headnote:
TENANCY ACT - JURISDICTION - CIVIL COURT - INJUNCTION - LANDLORD AND TENANT DISPUTE - A.P.(ANDHRA AREA) TENANCY ACT, 1956 - SECTION 16 & 17.
Fact of the Case:
Plaintiff, a mutt, filed a suit against defendants, including appellant, seeking a permanent injunction restraining them from converting the plaint schedule land into house plots and making any constructions thereon. The plaintiff claimed that the land was part of a larger property leased to one M. Munikanaiah in 1931 under a registered lease deed, which contained terms prohibiting the lessee from converting the land to non-agricultural purposes. The defendants contended that the lease was a permanent patta and not a lease, and that they had acquired title to the land through adverse possession. The trial court and appellate court decreed the suit in favor of the plaintiff, holding that the lease was valid and that the defendants were tenants.
Finding of the Court:
The High Court held that the civil court lacked jurisdiction to entertain the suit, as disputes between landlords and tenants are governed by the A.P.(Andhra Area) Tenancy Act, 1956. The court noted that Section 16 of the Act provides that any dispute arising under the Act between a landlord and a cultivating tenant shall be decided by the Special Officer, and that Section 17 gives overriding effect to the provisions of the Act. The court also held that the plaintiff's claim for an injunction was not maintainable, as the Special Officer had exclusive jurisdiction to grant such relief.
Issues: 1. Whether the civil court had jurisdiction to entertain the suit. 2. Whether the lease deed was a permanent patta or a lease. 3. Whether the defendants had acquired title to the land through adverse possession.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The A.P.(Andhra Area) Tenancy Act, 1956 provides a comprehensive framework for the resolution of disputes between landlords and tenants. Section 16 of the Act confers exclusive jurisdiction on the Special Officer to decide any dispute arising under the Act between a landlord and a cultivating tenant. Section 17 of the Act gives overriding effect to the provisions of the Act, excluding the jurisdiction of civil courts in such matters. 2. The terms of the lease deed clearly indicate that it was a lease and not a permanent patta. The lease deed contained specific conditions prohibiting the lessee from converting the land to non-agricultural purposes, which is consistent with the nature of a lease. 3. The defendants failed to establish that they had acquired title to the land through adverse possession. The plaintiff had produced evidence of its ownership of the land, and the defendants had not been in possession of the land for the statutory period required for adverse possession.
Final Decision: The High Court allowed the second appeal, set aside the decree and judgment of the appellate court and the trial court, and dismissed the suit filed by the plaintiff.
JUDGMENT :
The fifth defendant in O.S.No.286 of 1982 on the file of I Additional District Munsif, Tirupati, is the appellant. The first respondent is the sole plaintiff instituted the suit against respondents 2 to 6 and against the appellant seeking relief of permanent injunction restraining the respondents 2 to 6 and the appellant from converting the plaint “C” schedule land to an extent of Ac.0.06 cents in T.S.No.11 in Tirupati Town into house plots and making any constructions thereon changing the physical features of the said land. The first respondent/plaintiff mutt has shown three schedules in the plaint, which reads as under :
‘A’ Schedule
Chittoor District, Tirupati Sub District, Chandragiri Taluk – Tirupati town – T.S.No.11 of dry land of an extent of Ac.29.59 cents towards the western side of the way leading to the Alwar Theertham.
‘B’ Schedule
Chittoor District, Tirupati Sub District, Chandragiri Taluk – Tirupati town – T.S.No.11 land of an extent of Ac.7.72 cents within the following boundaries:
East: NGO's Colony, West: lands of the plaintiff in the occupation of its tenant T.T. Devasthanams, North: lands of the plaintiff in the occupation of its tenant Chittoor Chengaiah and others; South: Municipal Road leading to T.T.D. quarters.
‘C’ Schedule
Chittoor District – Tirupati sub District, Chandragiri Taluk – Tirupati town – T.S.No.11 land of an extent of Ac.0.06 cents within the following boundaries:
East: land unlawfully sold to S. Bhagyalakshmi, West: land unlawfully sold to P. Ramasubba Reddy, North: land in possession of Sakamuri Veeraswami Naidu, lessee of P.J. Mutt, South: Siripuram Colony.”
2. The first respondent and appellant herein will be referred to as plaintiff-mutt and D5, as arrayed before trial Court for the sake of brevity and convenience.
3. The suit is filed by the plaintiff-mutt in respect of above referred plaint “C” schedule property only, which is said to be part and parcel of “A” schedule and “B” schedule property.
4. The plaintiff-mutt filed suit against D5 and others stating that the plaint “A” schedule property in old Sy.No.507 and present town survey No.11 of Tirupati Town to an extent of Ac.29.59 cents belongs to them. The plaintiff submits that the head of mutt entered into a registered agreement of lease in respect of entire plaint “A” schedule property with one Mandaram Munikanaiah on 11.03.1931. It is the contention of plaintiff mutt that the said permanent registered lease deed contains following terms :
“(a) that the lessee has to pay Rs.25/- towards rent annually to the plaintiff mutt from 1340 fasli onwards every year(bill maktha)
(b) that in the event of any transfer of the lease hold right, interest, the fact be intimated to the lessor and the deeds of transfer be got executed with the express consent of the lessor.
(c) if the lessee fails to pay rent for a period of three years, there will be a forfeiture of the lease.
(d) the lessee or its successors should make improvements to the land and use for agricultural purpose and kept the land in good condition; and
(e) the transferees of the lease hold rights are also bound by the terms of the lease.”
5. They also pleaded that D1 purchased leasehold rights in respect of plaint “B” schedule property, which is part and parcel of plaint “A” schedule property from one Papaiah and others under registered sale deed dated 26.10.1959, who derives leasehold rights from Mandaram Munikanaiah, original lessee. They also pleaded that purchaser also bound by terms of original lease deed dated 11.03.1931 and liable to pay rent of Rs.6.87 per annum in respect of “B” schedule property, which D1 failed to pay from 1372 fasli year onwards, thereby committed default and then they filed suit O.S.No.59 of 1964 against D1 on the file of Subordinate Judge, Chittoor, for declaration of their title and for possession, which suit was transferred to Senior Civil Judge Court, Tirupati and renumbered as O.S.No.7 of 1971 and the said suit was decreed. Then, D1 preferred A.S.No.2
