Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana)
Smt. Parvathi Sahu And Ors. vs Ayyalasamayajulu Venkata Ramana And ... on 24 December, 2003
Equivalent citations: 2004(3)ALT731
Author: Elipe Dharma Rao
Bench: Elipe Dharma Rao
JUDGMENT T. Meena Kumari, J.
1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 31-3-1997 in O.S.No. 502 of 1989 on the file of the III Addl. Subordinate Judge's Court, Visakhapatnam wherein the learned Judge dismissed the suit.
2. The appellants are the legal representatives of the first plaintiff, who died during the pendency of the suit. The respondents are the defendants.
3. The case of the appellants are as follows:
The plaint schedule property of 19 acres forms part of the land covered by Survey No. 30 in Vepagunta Village in Pendurthy Mandal in erstwhile Visakhapatnam Taluk. Originally, the suit survey No. 30 is an extent of 42 acres 5 cents. The entire Vepagunta village was gifted to the Pagoda of Sri Sri Sri Varaha Lakshmi Narasimha Swamy Varu of Simhachalam and the authorities of the said Devasthanam have granted an extent of Ac.21.021/2 cents to one late Godaarthy Narayana Acharyulu long time back out of the total extent of 42.05 cents and he was in possession and enjoyment of the said extent of 21.021/2 cents.
4. After retirement of Narayana Acharylu from service directed him to pay rent to the Devasthanam by proceedings dated 11-2-1965 in the diagnostic register i.e., at the rate of 0.50 ps. per acre and the Executive Officer of the Devasthanam confirmed the possession and occupation of Narayana Acharyulu and directed him in the said proceedings to pay cist for the period of 10 years prior to the proceedings i.e., from 1964. The said Narayan Acharyulu raised a Mango and other fruit bearing tope in the land and he alienated an extent of Ac.16.00 out of an extent of Ac.21.02 1/2 cents on the western most portion with definite boundaries to the first plaintiff under registered sale deed dated 20-2-1965 and he also sold another extent of Ac.3.00 on 10-1-1966 and he delivered the possession of the said extents under the above said two registered sale deeds to the first plaintiff. Ever since the first plaintiff and his family members have been in possession and enjoyment of the said extent of Ac.19.00 cents.
5. It is further stated in the plaint that after purchase of the land, the first plaintiff applied to the Devasthanam for survey of the said land and paid the amount of Rs. 10/- on 8-2-1967 and the Executive Officer of the Simhachalam Devasthanam issued proceedings dated 10-3-1967 directing the surveyor to survey the lands and show the same to the first plaintiff and accordingly the land was surveyed. The first plaintiff also paid cysts due to Devasthanam and subsequently to the Government. He also submitted a declaration under Section VI of Central Act 33 of 1976 and the Special Officer and Competent Authority, Urban Land Ceiling, Visakhapatnam issued proceedings in CC No. 4281 of 1976 dated 17-11-1977.
6. While that being the case, in the month of June, 1988, the first plaintiff received a notice from the Mandal Revenue Officer, Pandurthi stating that an application under Sections 3,4,7 and 8 of the Inams Abolition Act, 1956 was filed by Ayyala Somayajulu Venkataramana (first defendant) and others and directed the first plaintiff to appear before him. Thereupon, the first plaintiff without prejudice to his rights as to the jurisdiction of the Mandal Revenue Officer under the Inams Abolition Act filed objection statement giving all the true facts. Later, the Mandal Revenue Officer by his proceedings dated 29-9-1989 in C.No. 1/88 issued proceedings stating that a Ryotwari Patta should be issued in respect of 2/3rd share to the defendants 1 to 3. It is the case of the first plaintiff that the Mandal Revenue Officer has no jurisdiction to issue the said proceedings and he cannot go into the question of title and he did not follow the provisions of AP Inam Abolition (Conversion, into Ryotwari) Act, 1956. In fact, there was no enquiry under Section 3 of the said Inams Abolition Act nor there was notification. The suit land is a Inam Dry Land situated in a village granted as a gift to the Pagoda and the findings of the MRO that the village itself is a Inam village is not correct.
7. It is stated by the first plaintiff that the village was originally a Zaraiti village which was granted as a gift to the Devasthanam and there should be proceedings under Section 3 and the finality of those proceedings are published in the Gazette. As per Section 4 of the Act, in respect of the Inam Land situated in Inam village owned by religious institutions, patta has to be granted to the institutions but not to the cultivator. Peculiarly, he granted a patta to the defendants. Under Section 4 of the Act, the distribution of the land in the ratio of 1:2 does not arise in respect of land owned by the institution and it applies in respect of the lands where the Inam Dar is a private person. Since the Inam Dar is the Simhachalam Devasthanam, the Tahsildar has no power to declare under Section 8 of the Act any rights of occupancy and the said Section does not provide for such a declaration. It is also the case of the first plaintiff that no proof was filed that the defendants who are in possession either in 1947 or 1956 or 1988 and the Mandal Revenue Officer also overlooked the fact that admittedly from 1965 and 1966, the first plaintiff is in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property i.e., for more than 24 years by the date of filing of the suit and hence the order of the MRO is void and hence the first plaintiff filed the suit claiming the reliefs of declaration and also permanent injunction.
8. The defendants filed written statement contending that the Simhachalam Devasthanam has no power or authority to make any grant or gift to anybody of the lands belonging to Sri Sri Sri Lakshmi Narasimha Swami Varu of Simhachalam and the rights of the Ryots or Tenants cannot be affected by such alleged gifts or grants. One Sri Ayyalasomayajulu Viswanadham, the ancestor of the defendants was inducted into possession of the suit land and other land which is in Survey No. 30 covered by TD No. 3145 as a Tenant in 1906 and since then he and his successors in interest including defendants 1 to 3 have continuously been in possession and enjoyment of the same and the Devasthanam has no right to issue proceedings dated 11-2-1965. The alleged proceedings must have been created or forged and it does not bind the defendants or their predecessors-in-interest. G. Narayanacharyulu was never in possession and enjoyment of the suit land at any time and he never paid any Land Revenue or other taxes in respect of the suit land to the Deity Sri Sri Sri Lakshmi Narasimhasami Varu or to the Devasthanam at any time. The alleged sale deeds dated 20-2-1965 and 10-1-1966 are not true, valid and binding on the defendants and the first plaintiff never took possession of the suit land under the alleged two sale deeds and the first plaintiff never paid any cyst to the Devasthanam or to the Government and the land was not surveyed.
9. The defendants also contends that the plaintiffs have no right to question the correctness, validity or otherwise of the said decision given by the MRO and it has become final and it is also binding on the first plaintiff as he participated in the proceedings and filed his objections. The present suit is barred by Section 14 of the AP Inams Abolition Act and the said order operates as res judicata and the plaintiffs are estopped from questioning the said order passed by the Mandal Revenue Officer and the court has no jurisdiction and hence prayed for dismissal of the suit.
10. During the pendency of the suit, the plaintiff died and plaintiffs 2 to 11 came on record as the Legal Representatives of the deceased first plaintiff.
11. The trail court framed the following issues basing on the pleadings of both the parties.
"(1) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for declaration as prayed for?
(2) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for injunction as prayed for?
(3) Whether Civil Court has no jurisdiction to try the suit?
(4) To what relief?"
12. The fifth plaintiff was examined as P.W.1 and examined P.Ws.2 to 9 in their support and got marked Exs.A-1 to A-22. On behalf of the defendants, first defendant himself was examined as D.W.1 besides examining D.Ws.2 to 4 and got marked Exs.B-1 to B-4. Exs.X-1 to X-9 were also marked. Exs.A-8, A-9, A-10, A-11, A-12 and A-21 are Exs.X-11, X-13, X-5, X-4, X-3 and X-2 respectively.
13. The Trial Court after appreciating the entire material on record and perusing the provision under Section 14 of the AP Inams Abolition and Conversion Act and relying on judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Vatticherukuru Village Panchayat v. Nori Venkatarama Deekshitulu and Ors., 1991 Supp. (3) SCC 228 has held that the Civil Court has no jurisdiction and answered issue No. 3 in favour of the defendants.
14. With regard to issue No. 1 as to whether the plaintiffs are entitled for declaration, the learned Subordinate Judge has held that though he satisfied the oral evidence with regard to possession of plaintiff over the suit land for a long time, he refused to grant declaration of title to the suit schedule land in favour of the plaintiffs and accordingly issue No. 1 was answered against to the plaintiffs and in favour of the defendants.
15. The learned Subordinate Judge also refused to grant the relief sought by the plaintiffs for grant of injunction in issue No. 3 in view of the findings on issue Nos. 1 and 2.
16. Questioning the said judgment, the plaintiffs in the suit filed the present appeal.
17. The learned counsel for the appellants, Mr. M.S.R. Subrahmanyam, submits that the learned Subordinate Judge erred in holding that as no appeal was filed against the order in Ex.A-20, served copy of the order of the MRO, the Civil Court has no jurisdiction in view of the fact that an appeal was already filed by the Devasthanam against the said order of the MRO and hence it cannot be said that order of the MRO under Ex.A-20 has become final.
18. On the other hand, the learned Senior Counsel Sri E. Manohar appearing for the respondents herein submits that the trial court has rightly appreciated the material with the relevant provisions and has rightly come to the conclusion that the jurisdiction of the Civil Court has been excluded and correctly dismissed the suit of the appellants and the same needs no interference by this court. The learned Senior Counsel also placed reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Vatticherukuru Village Panchayat (1st cited supra) in support of his contention.
19. The Supreme Court in the above said decision while dealing with under Sections 3, 7, 14, 14-A and 15 of the A.P. (Andhra Area) Inams (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1956 has held with regard to the exclusion of the Civil Court's Jurisdiction as follows:
"Section 9 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 provides that whenever a question arises before the Civil Court whether its jurisdiction is excluded expressly or by necessary implication, the court naturally feels inclined to consider whether remedy afforded by an alternative provision prescribed by special statute is sufficient or adequate. In cases whether exclusion of the Civil Court's jurisdiction is expressly provided for, the consideration as to the scheme of the statute in question and the adequacy or sufficiency of the remedy provided for by it may be relevant, but cannot be decisive. Whether exclusion is pleaded as a matter of necessary implication such consideration would be very important and in conceivable circumstances might become even decisive."
"Inams Act is a self-contained code. It expressly provided rights and liabilities; prescribed procedure, remedies of appeal and revision excluded the jurisdiction of the civil court and gave it primacy notwithstanding anything inconsistent with any law or instrument having force of law. The jurisdictional findings are an integral scheme to grant or refuse ryotwari patta under Section 3, red with Section 7 and not collateral findings. It was subject to appeal and revision and certiorari under Article 226. The decision of the Revenue Tribunal, are final and conclusive between the parties or persons claiming right, title or interest through them. The trick of pleadings and the camouflage of the reliefs are not decisive but the substance or the effect on the order of the tribunal under the Inams Act are decisive. The civil suit is not maintainable when the decree directly nullifies the ryotwari patta granted under Section 3 of the Inam Act"
20. Section 14 of the A.P. (Andhra Area) Inams (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1956 deals with the exclusion of the jurisdiction of Civil Courts. As per the said Section, no suit or other proceedings shall be instituted in any civil court to set aside or modify any decision of the Tahsildar, the Revenue Court or the Collector under the said Act except such decision was obtained by misrepresentation, fraud or collusion of parties. Thus, to exclude the jurisdiction of the Civil Court, it has to be proved that decision of the Tahsildar has been obtained either by misrepresentation or by fraud or by collusion of parties. In this case, though it is contended that Ex.A-20 was obtained by mis-representation, the learned Subordinate Judge has held that the Mandal Revenue Officer has given various reasons in support of the order passed by him under Ex.A-20 and that the learned Subordinate Judge has held that there is no basis to say that the order was obtained by misrepresentation.
21. This court also perused the entire material on record. The record reveals that the first plaintiff made his appearance before the Mandal Revenue Officer and filed his objections and having participated in the said proceedings, the appellants cannot say now that the order under Ex.A-20 was obtained by the respondents-defendants herein by way of misrepresentation. Since the order under Ex.A-20 was not obtained by misrepresentation of the facts, it has to be held that the jurisdiction of the Civil Court has been barred and the learned Subordinate Judge has rightly held that Civil Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the suit against the order of the Mandal Revenue Officer under Ex.A-20 and has rightly dismissed the suit refusing to grant any reliefs. In view of the law laid down by the Apex Court in the judgment cited supra, the appellant is not entitled for any relief.
22. In view of the above discussion, it has to be held that the appeal is liable to be dismissed and it is accordingly dismissed confirming the judgment and decree dated 31-3-1997 in O.S.No. 502 of 1989 of the learned III Addl. Subordinate Judge, Visakhapatnam. However, no costs.