Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 16 (1.45 seconds)
Kola Narsimhulu S/O Late Musalayya vs Sri Venugopalaswamyvaru The Presiding ... on 10 August, 2006 cites

Alla Nageswara Rao (Died) By Lrs. And ... vs Kalipindi Appala Narasamma And Ors. on 30 September, 2005

In support of the said contention he relied on a judgment of this Court in Alla Nageswara Rao v. Kalipindi Appala Narasamma . The facts of the said case are that the plaintiff purchased the tenancy rights from the tenants and seeking enforcement of the tenancy rights, a civil suit was filed for declaration that the plaintiff was a permanent tenant of the plaint schedule land directing the tenants to deliver possession of the same and for future mesne profits. There was no dispute in the said case with regard to the fact that the plaintiff was a tenant and stepped into the shoe of the original tenant. The civil Court, however, decreed the suit considering the issues as to whether the civil Court has got jurisdiction to entertain the suit and whether the plaintiff is entitled to seek declaration of permanent leasehold rights and interest in the suit schedule property, and held that the plaintiff purchased the permanent leasehold rights, as such, the plaintiff is entitled to the relief of possession in respect of the suit schedule property as prayed for and the civil Court has got jurisdiction to entertain the suit. Aggrieved by the said judgment, the defendants preferred an appeal before this Court. My learned Brother Honourable Sri Justice A. Gopal Reddy, while dealing with the first appeal after considering the various judgments held that the averments made in the plaint as well as the relief claimed clearly disclose that the plaintiffs claiming perpetual tenancy rights which they purchased under the transfer deeds and seek declaration that they will have permanent leasehold rights and interest over the plaint schedule lands and recovery of the same from successors-in-interest of landlords. Once the Act does not recognize the transfer of permanent tenancy rights possessed by any tenant and only such rights are heritable to the legitimate lineal descendants, whether plaintiffs, who are third parties, can be declared as tenants and can have any tenancy rights over the suit schedule property is a matter which has to be decided by the Tenancy Tribunal. Once the plaintiff asserts that she is a cultivating tenant acquires right of permanent tenancy and seeks a declaration to the said effect, such declaration, if any granted by the Special Tribunal but not by the Civil Court. The contention that the tenancy Court has no jurisdiction to restore possession and the Civil Court only has the jurisdiction to order restoration of possession is also negated holding that the landlord will have right for resumption under Section 12 of the Tenancy Act for his personal cultivation and can evict cultivating tenant by an application made to the Special Officer on any ground mentioned under Section 13 of the Tenancy Act. Therefore, in view of the admitted fact that the plaintiff was the purchaser from the cultivating tenant it was held that the civil Court has no jurisdiction.
Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana) Cites 31 - Cited by 15 - Full Document
1   2 Next