IMPORTANT POINT
Ouster of jurisdiction of Civil Court is not to be readily inferred.

ORDER

This civil revision petition, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, is filed challenging the orders, dated 20.01.2020, passed in O.S.No.111 of 2013 on the file of the Court of VIII Additional District Judge, West Godavari, Eluru, holding on the preliminary issue on the point of jurisdiction in the affirmative and to the effect that the civil Court has jurisdiction.

2. The facts leading to filing of this revision petition are as follows:—

The respondents 1 to 25/plaintiffs filed the suit for declaration that the patta issued by the defendant No.3/Tahasildar, Pentapadu Mandal, Pentapadu village, in favour of the mother of the defendants 4 & 5, by name, Kovvuri Tulasamma, with regard to ‘B’ schedule property (2/3rd of the plaint ‘A’ schedule) is null and void and for consequential relief of possession of ‘B’ schedule property to the plaintiffs by evicting the defendants 4 & 5 therefrom and costs of the suit. The suit was opposed on the ground that the civil Court has no jurisdiction by virtue of Section 14 of the A.P (A.A.) Inams (Abolition & Conversion Into Ryotwari) Act, 1956 [hereinafter referred to as ‘Act of 1956’]. The contention of the plaintiffs is that the jurisdiction of the civil Court is not completely ousted as the relevant provision bars civil suit except where the decision of the Tahasildar is obtained by mis-representation, fraud or collusion of the parties and that necessary pleadings have been taken in the plaint pleading collusion and which if proved would also amount to fraud.

3. Learned counsel for the respondents/plaintiffs has referred to the pleadings in paras (14) & (15) of the plaint to show that the plaintiffs have taken necessary care in filing the suit by taking appropriate pleadings. On the other hand, learned counsel for the revision petitioners/defendants 4 & 5 contended that bare use of the word like ‘fraud’ is not enough and all the details of such fraud are required as per Order VI Rule 4 CPC, and in the absence of such pleadings, the civil Court has no jurisdiction and by clever drafting of the plaint, the plaintiffs cannot overcome the bar of jurisdiction.

4. In reply, learned counsel for the respondents/plaintiffs submitted that Order VI Rule 4 CPC refers details of ‘fraud’ etc., but not ‘collusion’ and what is not there in the statute should not be imported and whereas Section 14 of the Act of 1956 retains the jurisdiction of Civil Court not only when ‘fraud’ is pleaded but also when collusion is pleaded. He further elaborated that the term ‘collusion’ does not require details to be pleaded, and therefore, no illegally is committed. In this regard, he further illustrated that the provisions of the Specific Relief Act require readiness and willingness of the plaintiff in a suit for specific performance to be pleaded and proved, but there is no such similar requirement as per Order VI Rule 4 CPC in respect of ‘collusion’ pleaded, and therefore, whatever is pleaded by the plaintiffs in the plaint is sufficient to bring in the suit within the jurisdiction of the civil Court. Learned counsel further submitted that collusion cannot always be direct and it can be inferred from the other facts and circumstances which are already incorporated in the plaint, such as, granting of patta on 16.01.2010 and dividing the property on 21.01.2010 without having any such authority and that too, without giving notice to the parties who have been in possession of the property for more than five decades, and all these pleadings are sufficient to provide a substratum for the plea of ‘collusion’. Learned counsel, in support of his contentions, placed reliance on the decisions in Union of India v. M/s. Khas Karanapura Colliery Ltd., 1969 AIR 125, and Kali Prasad Agarwalla v. Bharat Coking Coal Limited & others, 1989 SCR (2) 283.

5. In response thereto, learned counsel for the revision petitioners submitted that the fact that the plaintiffs have recently filed an application before the trial Court seeki