Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2002 DIGILAW 834 (AP)

Ibrahim Khan v. Gowram Kondaiah

2002-07-05

P.S.NARAYANA

body2002
P. S. NARAYANA, J. ( 1 ) THE unsuccessful plaintiffs in OS No. 431 of 1984 on the file of Principal Subordinate Judge, Ranga reddy District are the appellants and the respondents in the appeal are the defendants in the suit. Respondents 32 to 38 were brought on record as legal representatives of deceased 16th respondent and respondents 39 and 40 were brought on record as legal representatives of the deceased respondent 17 and respondents 41 and 42 were brought on record as legal representatives of deceased 23rd respondent, vide Court orders dated 17-3-1992 in CMP No. 11938 of 1990. ( 2 ) THE appellants/plaintiffs instituted the said suit as indigent persons and the appeal also is being prosecuted as indigent persons only. ( 3 ) THE respective pleadings of the parties are as follows: ( 4 ) THE appellants/plaintiffs had prayed for a declaration that they are the owners of the plaint schedule properties and for recovery of possession of the said properties making the following allegations in the plaint. ( 5 ) IT is pleaded in the plaint that the paternal uncle of the plaintiffs Shri Ahmed khan was the owner of the suit lands bearing survey Nos. 1 to 31 (168 to 198), known as hussain Bowli, Mundi Kate Bowli, Mogala bai Gadda and Veerappagadda, situated at malkajiguda hamelt of Nandivanparthi village. Taluk Ibrahimpatnam, Rangareddy district. Previously Malkajiguda was arazi Maktha and treated as separate village and one Syed Qurban Hussain Khan was the Makhtedar of Malkajiguda village, ibrahimpatnam Taluq, Ranga Reddy District. It is stated that the Makthedar Syed Qurban hussain Khan had given away the suit lands to the paternal uncle of the plaintiffs through deed of permanent tenancy dated 30-4-1329 Fasli. Ahmed Khan was the eldest brother and he was having two brothers Ismail Khan and Mahboob Khan and three of them were living jointly. Ahmed Khan died issueless. The plaintiffs fathers succeeded to him and later on the plaintiffs have succeeded to their fathers. During the life time of the plaintiffs fathers there had been disputes between the makhtedar and the plaintiffs fathers and ultimately the cases have been decided in favour of the plaintiffs fathers. Ahmed Khan died issueless. The plaintiffs fathers succeeded to him and later on the plaintiffs have succeeded to their fathers. During the life time of the plaintiffs fathers there had been disputes between the makhtedar and the plaintiffs fathers and ultimately the cases have been decided in favour of the plaintiffs fathers. Later on, boundary dispute arose between the nakerta and Malkajiguda villages and later on after enquiry the case had been settled and the suit lands have been held part and parcel of Malkajiguda and later on the names of the plaintiffs, fathers had been entered in settlement records as possessors. It is further stated that after the death of syed Qurban Hussain Khan his successor had become the Makhtedar of Malkajiguda. He had admitted the rights of the plaintiffs fathers and submitted an application before Collector of Hyderabad District to issue supplementary sethwar in respect of the suit lands in favour of the plaintiffs fathers. It is further stated that the defendants have no concern with the title and possession of the suit lands. The defendants had colluded with the Makhtedars of malkajiguda and with their connivance they came into possession of the suit lands and later on they had stopped making payment of the rent to the plaintiffs and began to assert their ownership. The defendants have denied the ownership of the plaintiffs in the month of June, 1970 and since then stopped making payment of the rent. It is stated that these are the faets which constituted the cause of action. Hence, the plaintiffs are entitled to bring the suit against the defendants. The possession of the plaintiffs became disputed from 20-6-1970. It is also stated that the defendants have no manner of right to retain their possession over the suit lands after denying the title of the plaintiffs and as such the plaintiffs are entitled to bring the suit and they are also entitled for mesne profits. ( 6 ) WRITTEN statement was filed by defendants 1, 3, 10, 11,13 and 17 to 22 wherein all the material allegations had been denied. It was pleaded in the written statement as follows: ( 7 ) IN reply to paragraphs 3 to 5 of the plaint it is submitted that the facts mentioned therein are incorrect, concocted and fabricated for the purpose of filing the suit and as such these defendants deny the correctness of the same. It was pleaded in the written statement as follows: ( 7 ) IN reply to paragraphs 3 to 5 of the plaint it is submitted that the facts mentioned therein are incorrect, concocted and fabricated for the purpose of filing the suit and as such these defendants deny the correctness of the same. Further it is respectably submitted that it is absolutely false to say that the Makhtedar given away the suit lands to the patemal uncle of the plaintiffs through whom the plaintiffs herein succeeded to the said lands and there were disputes in between the fathers of the plaintiffs and the makhtedar and the cases were decided in their favour as the same are far from truth and as such these defendants deny the correctness of the same. Further it is respectably submitted that the real facts are that neither the lands were given to the paternal uncle of the plaintiffs nor they were in possession at any time, but as a matter of fact, the defendants herein are in possession and enjoyment of the same since more than 100 years i. e. , even during the tenure of Makhtedar. Originally the fore-fathers of the defendants herein paid lease grains to the Makhtedars but subsequently since more than 40 years, these defendants are neither paying anything to the Makhtedars nor they have got any concern with the suit lands and these defendants themselves are in exclusive possession and enjoyment on then-own accord by paying land revenue to the Government and thus they perfected their title by way of adverse possession against the entire world. Further it is submitted that the fathers of the plaintiffs herein initiated several litigations against the defendants herein for claiming the suit lands for themselves, but all their efforts were failed and the suits and cases instituted by them were dismissed and having their fathers failed the plaintiffs herein once again were initiating the all suits against the defendants herein claiming the suit lands, which are not tenable and the suit itself is fit to be dismissed in liinini as the findings of the previous litigations operate as res judicata to the filing of this suit. ( 8 ) IN reply to paragraphs 6 to 9 of the plaint, it is submitted that the facts mentioned therein are incorrect and fabricated and foisted for the purpose of filing this suit and as such these defendants deny the correctness of the said allegations. Further it is respectably submitted that it is absolutely false to say that the defendants herein are the lease-holders of the fathers of the plaintiffs herein and also all the plaintiffs herein and they used to pay the lease amounts to the plaintiffs and the disputes arose in the year 1970. All the said allegations are sheer concoction for the purpose of initiating this suit and as a matter of fact there is no iota of truth whatsoever in the said allegations and as such these defendants deny the correctness of the same. Further it is respectably submitted that as stated above, the defendants herein are in possession and enjoyment on their own accord and they are not the tenants to anybody and in view of the abolition of the Jagirs and Makhtedars, the defendants themselves are entitled and deemed to be the land-holders under the provisions of abolition of Jagirs and Inams. Even otherwise, having perfected their title by way of adverse possession, the plaintiffs are not entitled to claim either the possession or title of the suit lands, that too, in the absence of any of their title in respect of the suit lands. Paragraphs 10 and 11 of the plaint require no reply as the same are legal ones. ( 9 ) FURTHER, the defendants herein submit that they got dug two wells by investing huge amounts to a tune of rs. 20,000/- and also they developed the suit lands by various means by investing huge amounts and now the development which was made by the defendants herein became eye-sore to the plaintiffs herein and they, by hook or crook, want to deprive the defendants herein from their legitimate rights in respect of the suit lands and they are also trying to grab the lands from the defendants herein which is not only illegal but they are not entitled in any manner. It was also pleaded that the facts stated in the plaint which are not specifically admitted are categorically denied by the defendants and the plaintiffs may be put to strict proof of the same. It was also pleaded that the facts stated in the plaint which are not specifically admitted are categorically denied by the defendants and the plaintiffs may be put to strict proof of the same. ( 10 ) NO doubt a plea was taken that the suit is not maintainable in view of the provisions of the A. P. (Telangana Area) abolition of Inams Act, 1955. Plaintiffs 1 to 5 and defendants 28 to 31 in the suit had filed compromise petition on 24-4-1987 and the same was recorded and no doubt the 4th defendant was present in person on 28-7-1979 before the trial Court but he had not engaged any Counsel to contest the matter. ( 11 ) ON the respective pleadings of the parties, the following issues were settled by the trial Court :1. Whether Ahmed Khan, the paternal uncle of the plaintiffs, was the owner of suit lands situate at malkajiguda, H/o. Nandivanaparty and that the suit lands are maktha lands? 2. Whether Makhtedar Syed Qurban hussain Khan had given away the suit lands to the paternal uncle of plaintiffs? 3. Whether the name of the father of plaintiff is entered in the settlement records? 4. Whether the defendants have any title or right in the suit lands ? 5. Whether the possession of defendants is lawful even though they are not paying rents of the suit lands to plaintiffs? 6. Whether the defendants are not the tenants in the suit lands and were not paying rents to plaintiffs? 7. Whether plaintiffs have title and right of ownership in the suit lands? 8. Whether the defendants have got any legal right and interest in the suit lands? 9. To what relief? an additional issue also was framed to the effect: whether the suit is maintainable in view of the provisions of the Inams Abolition act? ( 12 ) IN the trial Court, the evidence of PW1 to PW5 and DW 1 and DW2 had been recorded and Ex. A1 to Ex. A21 and ex. B1 to Ex. B26 were marked and on appreciation both oral and documentary evidence, the trial Court dismissed the suit and aggrieved by the same, the appellants/ plaintiffs had preferred this appeal as indigent persons. A1 to Ex. A21 and ex. B1 to Ex. B26 were marked and on appreciation both oral and documentary evidence, the trial Court dismissed the suit and aggrieved by the same, the appellants/ plaintiffs had preferred this appeal as indigent persons. ( 13 ) SRI Mallik, the learned Counsel representing the appellants/plaintiffs with all vehemence had contended that the trial court totally erred in dismissing the suit though the legal rights of the appellants/ plaintiffs had been well established by examining PW1 to PW5 and also by producing documentary evidence Ex. A1 to A21. The learned Counsel while making elaborate submissions no doubt had staled that on the respective pleadings of the parties and also on the strength of the material available on record it cannot be said that these lands are not inam lands. But however, the learned Counsel would maintain that the appellants/plaintiffs are entitled to the relief prayed for as persons who are entitled to recover possession from the respondents/defendants. The learned Counsel also pointed out that apart from the evidence of PW1 and PW2, independent evidence of PW3 and PW4 also is available and no doubt PW5 was examined only to identify the signature of his father. PW5 himself is an advocate and he had spoken about the signature of his father in Ex. A15. The learned Counsel had further pointed out relating to Ex. A5 to ex. A7 and had commented that though ex. A5 and Ex. A6 may relate to non-parties to the litigation, definitely Ex. A7 relates to the 3rd defendant. The learned Counsel had drawn my attention of Ex. Al, Ex. A2, ex. A3 and also Ex. A20 and Ex. A21 and had pointed out that in view of these documents it is clear that the appellants/ plaintiffs are definitely entitled to better rights or higher rights the permanent leasehold rights, and hence the defendants who are the defaulters in payment of rents relating to the plaint schedule properties are definitely liable to be evicted. The learned counsel also had pointed out that several of the defendants had not chosen to come to the witness box atleast and hence the dismissal of the suit in toto is definitely bad in law. The leaned Counsel further submitted that the trial Court totally erred in ignoring Ex. A3 - a no objection for issuance of sethwar. The learned Counsel also had submitted that Ex. The leaned Counsel further submitted that the trial Court totally erred in ignoring Ex. A3 - a no objection for issuance of sethwar. The learned Counsel also had submitted that Ex. A5 to Ex. A7 do not require any stamp duty. The learned counsel had drawn my attention to several provisions of the A. P. (Telangana Area) land Revenue Act – Sections 66, 67 and 67-A in particular, and also the different provisions of A. P. (Telangana Area) abolition of Inams Act, 1955 and A. P. (Telangana Area) Atiyat Enquiries Act, 1952. The learned Counsel ultimately commented that it cannot be in dispute that the permanent lease stood in the name of Ahmed Khan and these parties are successors of the said Ahmed Khan and hence automatically they are entitled to maintain the suit for ejectment on the said ground though not on the ground that they are having absolute title to the property, especially in the light of the fact that they arc having better rights, and at any rate it was contended that the respondents/defendants being the tenants, the question of plea of adverse possession does not arise and further in view of the provisions of the Indian Evidence Act they are estopped from contending otherwise since such tenants cannot deny the title of the original landlord, whatever may be other defective title of the landlord in such a case. The learned counsel also pointed out that the trial court, having recorded a specific finding that there can be no adverse possession in this case, had totally erred in dismissing the suit. The learned Counsel had drawn my attention to the genealogy of the plaintiffs and had no doubt made a submission that there is no dispute about this fact. The learned Counsel also contended that the whole approach of the trial Court in appreciating both oral and documentary evidence is totally erroneous and hence the judgment and decree of the trial Court are liable to be set-aside. ( 14 ) SRI Satya Veera Reddy, the learned counsel representing some of the respondents with equal vehemence had contended that on the admitted facts the land is an inam land and hence in the light of the provisions of the A. P. (Telangana area) Abolition of Inams Act, 1955, the civil Court has no jurisdiction at all. ( 14 ) SRI Satya Veera Reddy, the learned counsel representing some of the respondents with equal vehemence had contended that on the admitted facts the land is an inam land and hence in the light of the provisions of the A. P. (Telangana area) Abolition of Inams Act, 1955, the civil Court has no jurisdiction at all. The learned Counsel further pointed out that the leases were not pleaded in the plaint and hud drawn my attention to paragraphs 2 and 8 of the plaint. The learned Counsel further commented that several arguments advanced by the appellants relating to sections 66, 67 and 67-A and also the provisions of A. P. (Telangana Area) Atiyat enquiries Act, 1952, may not be much relevant. The learned Counsel also further would maintain that even on the strength of Ex. A2, fix. A3 and also Ex. A20, the appellants/plaintiffs cannot claim the relief of declaration of title and recovery of possession and as per their own case they are claiming permanent leasehold rights and a dispute of this nature has to be adjudicated in accordance with the provisions of the A. P. (Telangana Area) Abolition of inams Act, 1955 and hence the civil suit is definitely barred. The learned Counsel also contended that even on the admissions of pw1 that their father died long ago, the suit is haired by limitation and the learned counsel had drawn my attention to the admission made by PW1 relating to the pendnecy of an application before the revenue Divisional Officer. The learned counsel also commented that there is no succession proceeding and hence the appellants/plaintiffs cannot be connected with ahmed Khan and the permanent lease stood in the name of Ahmed Khan. The learned counsel also submitted that even the question of genealogy should have been raised and opportunity should have been given to the opposite parlies to contest the same in the trial Court. The learned Counsel commented that Ex. A5 to Ex. A7 relate to non-parties to the litigation and further had drawn my attention to Ex. 131 to Ex. B4, the passbooks, and also commented about Ex. A2 and Ex. A3. The learned Counsel also no doubt had commented that even in view of the different provisions of A. P. (Telangana area) Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act. A5 to Ex. A7 relate to non-parties to the litigation and further had drawn my attention to Ex. 131 to Ex. B4, the passbooks, and also commented about Ex. A2 and Ex. A3. The learned Counsel also no doubt had commented that even in view of the different provisions of A. P. (Telangana area) Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act. civil Court cannot entertain a suit of this nature and no doubt the learned Counsel had drawn my attention to several provisions of the said Act. Ultimately, the learned counsel contended that this remedy itself is a misconceived remedy and the remedy, if any available to the appellants/plaintiffs, is elsewhere. ( 15 ) HEARD both the Counsel at length. ( 16 ) THE points, which arise for consideration in this appeal on the strength of the material available on record, are as follows: (a) Whether the appellants/plaintiffs are entitled to the relief of declaration of title and recovery of possession relating to plaint schedule properties as prayed for in the suit? (b) Whether the civil Court has jurisdiction to entertain a suit of this nature? (c) If so, to what relief the parties are entitled to ? point (a) : ( 17 ) THE case of the appellants/plaintiffs is that they are the sons of Ismail Khan and Mahaboob Khan and Ismail Khan, mahboob Khan and Ahmed Khan were brothers and Ahmed Khan died issueless and Ahmed Khan was a permanent tenant under Ex. A1 executed by one Qurban hussain, Makhtedar of Malkajiguda village and Malkajiguda village is a Makhta village - Araji makhta. No doubt a plea was taken that certain specified defendants are tenants and they have been paying Makhta and inasmuch as they are not paying the said Makhta the appellants/plaintiffs are entitled to the relief but the same had been denied by the contesting defendants/ respondents. It is no doubt true that several of the parties had not contested the litigation. The subject-matter of the suit is a vast extent of land. It is no doubt true that several of the parties had not contested the litigation. The subject-matter of the suit is a vast extent of land. There is no clear or specific description specifying in the schedule at least, as to which property is in possession of which defendant and in this respect though certain of the parties had not contested it is not clear to which extents the appellants/plaintiffs may be entitled to and in this view of the matter and also in the light of the pleading where only common cause of action had been pleaded, it is difficult to decide the dispute in the absence of said particulars. Equally so even about the genealogy. No doubt, it was contended by the Counsel for the appellants that this aspect is not in dispute, but the learned counsel for the respondents had taken a stand that even this aspect is in dispute and there is no material available on record at least to establish that these are the successors of Ahmed Khan and they are entitled to maintain the said action. Ahmed khan is said to be the paternal uncle of the appellants/plaintiffs. The evidence of PW1 is that originally the suit lands were purchased by one Qurban Hussain Khan and he gave them to their grand-father on permanent lease by name Yousuf Khan and patta of the suit land was mutated in the name of his maternal grand father by name ahmed Khan, and Ahmed Khan had two brothers - Ismail Khan and Mahboob Khan. After the death of Ahmed Khan the suit lands devolved upon the said two brothers and he is the son of Mahboob Khan while plaintiffs 5 and 6 are the sons of Ismail khan. It is pertinent to note that the fact that Qurban Hussain Khan gave the suit lands on permanent lease to Yousuf Khan was not specifically pleaded. It was no doubt stated that Qurban Hussain Khan gave the suit lands to Ahmed Khan through a deed of permanent tenancy dated 30-4-1329 fasli. No doubt, PW1 deposed that the patta for the suit lands had been granted in favour of Ahmed Khan in Ex. A1, but on perusal of Ex. A1 it is only a permanent kavulanama executed by jagirdars in favour of one Ahmed Khan, son of Hussain khan. Ex. No doubt, PW1 deposed that the patta for the suit lands had been granted in favour of Ahmed Khan in Ex. A1, but on perusal of Ex. A1 it is only a permanent kavulanama executed by jagirdars in favour of one Ahmed Khan, son of Hussain khan. Ex. A2 is the mortgage deed dated 31st Sherewar 1352 Fasli executed by Ismail Khan, son of Hussain Khan in favour of Venkayya and there also it is mentioned that the executant is a permanent lease holder and hence even on the basis of these documents it cannot be said that these parties are owners of the property. Ex. A3 is a certified copy of the petition dated 1-8-1963 said to have been given by one Syed Jainullabuddin. Mekhtedar of malkajiguda staling that he had no objection for issuance of sethwar in the name of mahboob Khan. However, the genuineness of the original of Ex. A3 was disputed and the trial Court had observed that steps could have been taken to summon the original of Ex. A3. Ex. A4 is the succession certificate granted by the then jagirdar Syed qurban Hussain and it shows that the jagirdar granted virasat in favour of mahboob Khan and Ismail Khan accepting them as the heirs of late Ahmed Khan and no doubt the genuineness of Ex. A4 also is in dispute. Much comment had been made that Ex. A4 is created for the purpose ot litigation and this aspect also was not specifically pleaded in the plaint and even otherwise none connected with Ex. A4 had been examined and hence the trial Court had recorded reasons for not considering ex. A4. Likewise, the original of Ex. A8 also was not called for and after discussing the other material, Ex. A5 to Ex. A7 also on record, the trial Court came to the conclusion that there is no material to show that the names of the fathers of the appellants/plaintiffs were entered in the settlement records. According to PW1, defendants 1 to 3, the 6th defendants and defendants 9 to 16 were the lessees originally and defendants 14 and 15 and all others were alive and defendants 17 to 22 are the legal representatives of defendants 14 and 15. According to PW1, defendants 1 to 3, the 6th defendants and defendants 9 to 16 were the lessees originally and defendants 14 and 15 and all others were alive and defendants 17 to 22 are the legal representatives of defendants 14 and 15. The specific stand taken is that these defendants were paying the paddy, the lease amount till June, 1970 and thereafter they had denied the ownership of the plaintiffs and in sueh circumstances the suit was filed. Ex. A5 and Ex. A6 definitely refer to the non-parties to the litigation. Ex. A7 is said to be the leased deed executed by Vadder Durga in favour of Ismail Khan and he is shown as the 3rd defendant in the suit. But however this document also was not considered by the trial Court on the ground that none concerned with the said document had been examined and it was also commented that Ex. A5 and Ex. A7 were filed into Court for the first time in the year 1982, long after the institution of the suit and these are all on plain paper and hence the creation of these documents for the purpose of the suit cannot be ruled out. Likewise, the other documentary evidence i. e. , Exs. A9, Alt), A11, A13, A14 also had been discussed. Ex. A15 is a file cover with endorsement said to have been made by advocate Sri Gulam Akbar. PW5, Mohd. Gulam Hyder, a practising advocate had deposed that he is the son of late Gulam hyder and Ex. A15 is in the handwriting of his father and Ex. A15 shows that Mohaboob khan filed case against Kondayya for payment of lease amount and restoration of land and the Tahsildar ordered Kondayya to pay the lease amount within a period of one month and no doubt this fact also was not pleaded and the plaint is, as vague as vagueness can be, since it lacks several of the details and particulars. In a suit of this nature, care should have been taken to specify all the details in the plaint and it is needless to say that the burden is very heavy on the appellants/ plaintiffs. ( 18 ) EX. A17 is a mortgage deed, said to have been executed by Mohaboob Khan and Ismail Khan and it is an unregistered and unstamped mortgage deed and hence the same is inadmissible in evidence. ( 18 ) EX. A17 is a mortgage deed, said to have been executed by Mohaboob Khan and Ismail Khan and it is an unregistered and unstamped mortgage deed and hence the same is inadmissible in evidence. Ex. A18 is Kubuliathnama said to have been executed by Penta s/o. Shiva in favour of Ismail Khan but the said party is a non-party to the suit. Ex. A19 is another kubuliatlmama executed by Durga and malta in favour of Ismail Khan and this document also was not proved. Hence, a finding had been recorded by the trial Court that Exs. A15 and A19 also do not help the case of the appellants/ plaintiffs. ( 19 ) NO doubt, PW2 had supported PW1 in all material particulars and PW3 deposed that the plaintiffs have their lands in malkajiguda and he also owns lands nearby and he also deposed about the defendants paying some profits towards lease amount and no doubt he was cross-examined putting several suggestions that he was deposing falsely. PW-4 had deposed that the plaintiffs are the sons of his sister and no doubt he deposed that the plaintiffs father had three brothers and deposed relating to the ownership and also the lease transactions and this witness is a close relative to the appellants/plaintiffs. PW5, as already referred to supra, was examined only for the limited purpose of proving the signature of his father mohd. Gulam Akbar, a practicing advocate at a particular point of time and who is no more. ( 20 ) AS against this evidence, the evidence of DW1 and DW2 is available and DW1 stated that the suit lands are in their possession from their fore-fathers and they have been cultivating the lands for nearly 40 to 45 years and nobody demanded rents to the suit lands and they never paid rents and no doubt he had given certain details about the cultivation of the lands by different defendants. He also deposed that he filed petitions before the Revenue divisional Officer for grant of patta under the provisions of Inams Abolition Act and they are pending disposal. He also further deposed about the expenditure incurred by him for digging wells and also for developing his lands and certain other particulars. DW2 also was examined to the same effect. He also deposed that he filed petitions before the Revenue divisional Officer for grant of patta under the provisions of Inams Abolition Act and they are pending disposal. He also further deposed about the expenditure incurred by him for digging wells and also for developing his lands and certain other particulars. DW2 also was examined to the same effect. On appreciation of both oral and documentary evidence, the trial Court had recorded findings that the appellants/ plaintiffs are not entitled to the relief prayed for. All these questions which had been decided by the trial Court are all questions of facts on appreciation of evidence and though the learned Counsel for the appellants had made certain comments about certain of the findings like adverse possession, the said finding was recorded in relation to the facts that the subject-matter of the suit is governed by the provisions of the A. P. (Telengana Area) Abolition of inams Act, 1955 and hence the said observations also are not of much help to the appellants/plaintiffs. It is no doubt true that some material had been placed that ahmed Khan was in fact granted permanent lease. But however, there is no sufficient material to establish the other aspects and even otherwise the question involved in the suit is a matter relating to the permanent leasehold rights of inam land and in the light of the same it cannot be said that the findings recorded by the trial Court in this regard are unjustified so as to take a different view to reverse the said findings as an appellate Court and hence the said findings are affirmed. Point (b): ( 21 ) THE crucial question which had been elaborately argued by both the counsel is the aspect of jurisdiction of civil court to entertain the suit. The suit, as framed, is for declaration of title and for possession, but even as per the case of the appellants/plaintiffs they are only successors in interest of a permanent lessee and further there is no dispute that the land is inam land though an attempt was made on the part of the Counsel for the appellants to state that these are patta lands only. There is an admission of PW1 that they also prayed lor grant of patta certificate relating to the plaint schedule properties under the provisions of A. P. (Telangana area) Abolition of Inams Act. There is an admission of PW1 that they also prayed lor grant of patta certificate relating to the plaint schedule properties under the provisions of A. P. (Telangana area) Abolition of Inams Act. 1955 and in the light of the same there cannot be any dispute that the lands are inam lands and apart from it the pahanies and also the ryoth pass books, Exs. B1 to B4, amply establish the fact that these lands arc mam lands. Further it is not in dispute that malkajiguda village is a makhta village i. e. , Arazi Makhta. Section 3 of the A. P. (Telangana Area) Abolition of Inams act, 1955 deals with Abolition and vesting of Inams and the consequences thereof. Section 2 (1) (c) of the said Act defines "inam" as follows:"inam means land held under a gift or a grant made by the Nizam or by any Jagirdar, holder of a Samsthan or other competent grantor and continued or confirmed by virtue of a muntakhab or other title deed, with or without the condition of service and coupled with remission of the whole or part of the land revenue thereon and entered as such in the village records and includes (i) arazi makhta, arazi agrahar and sen inam; and (ii) lands held as inam by virtue of long possession and entered as inam in the village records: provided that in respect of former Jagir areas the expression mam shall not include such lands as have not been recognised as imams by Government after the abolition of the Jagirs". In Section 2 (1) (c) of the said Act, "arazi makhta", "arazi agrahar" and "sen inam" are specifically included. Likewise, section 2 (1) (e) of the said Act defines "kabize-e-Kadim" as follows:"kabize-E-KADIM means the holder of inam land, other than an inamdar, who has been in possession of such land at the time of the grant of inam or has been in continuous possession of such land for not less than twelve years before the date of vesting and who pays the inamdar only the land revenue"likewise, Section 2 (1) (h) defines "permanent tenant" as follows:"permanent tenant means a person who, from a date prior to 10th June, 1950, has been cultivating the inam land on a permanent lease from the inamdar whether under an instrument or an oral agreement. "section 2 (2) of the said Act says that the words and expression used in this Act but not defined therein shall have the meaning assigned to them in the Land revenue Act, 1319-Fasli, the Hyderabad tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1950, the Hyderabad Atiyat Enquiries Act, 1352 and the rules thereunder. In the light of section 2 (2), several of the provisions of this Act may have to be read along with the provisions of the enactments specified in the said provision. Section 4 of the said Act deals with Registration of inamdars as occupants. Likewise, Section 5 deals with registration of Kabiz-e-Kadim as occupant. Section 6 of the Act is more relevant for the present purpose and the said provision deals with Registration of permanent tenants as occupants and the said provision reads as follows: (1) Every permanent tenant shall, with effect from the date of vesting, be entitled to be registered as an occupant in respect of such inam lands in his possession as may be left over after the allotment under Section 4 which immediately before the date of vesting were under his personal cultivation and which together with any lands he separately owns and cultivates personally, are equal to four and a half times the family holding . (2) The permanent tenant shall be entitled to compensation from the Government as provided for under this Act in respect of inam lands in his possession in excess of the limit in sub-section (1) whether cultivated or not. (3) No permanent tenant shall be registered as an occupant of any land under sub-section (1) unless he pays to the government as premium an amount equal to twenty-five times the land revenue for dry land and nine times for wet land. The amount of premium shall be payable in not more than ten annual instalments along with annual land revenue and in default of such payment, shall be recoverable as arrears of land revenue due on the land in respect of which it is payable. The amount of premium shall be payable in not more than ten annual instalments along with annual land revenue and in default of such payment, shall be recoverable as arrears of land revenue due on the land in respect of which it is payable. In the light of these provisions and especially in the light of certain admissions made by pw1 and also the evidence of DW 1 it was strenuously contended by the Counsel for the respondents that the jurisdiction of the civil Court to grant the relief of this nature is definitely barred by the provisions of the A. P. (Telangana Area) Abolition of inams Act, 1955. ( 22 ) IT is not in dispute that the parties had invoked the jurisdiction of the authorities under the Act. No doubt, the learned Counsel for the appellants had made an attempt to show that the jurisdiction of the Civil Court cannot be said to be barred since there is no express prohibition under the said Act and the learned counsel also had senously contended that the relief prayed for in the suit cannot be granted by the authorities under the Act and hence it cannot be said that the suit is barred. ( 23 ) SECTION 9 of the Code of Civil procedure reads as follows: "courts to try all civil suits unless barred. The Courts shall (subject to the provisions herein contained) have jurisdiction to try all suits of a civil nature excepting suits of which their cognizance is either expressly or impliedly barred. Explanation I : A suit in which the right to property or to an office is contested is a suit of a civil nature, notwithstanding that such right may depend entirely on the decision of questions as to religious riles or ceremonies. Explanation II : For the purposes of this section, it is immaterial whether or not any fees are attached to the office referred to in Explanation I or whether or not such office is attached to a particular place. Section 23 of the A. P. (Telangana Area) abolition of Inams Act, 1955 deals with constitution of Special Tribunals and their powers and likewise Sections 10 and 30 of the said Act deal with Enquiry by Collector. Section 23 of the A. P. (Telangana Area) abolition of Inams Act, 1955 deals with constitution of Special Tribunals and their powers and likewise Sections 10 and 30 of the said Act deal with Enquiry by Collector. Section 33 of the said Act specifically says that nothing in this Act shall in any way be deemed to affect the application of the provisions of the A. P. (Telangana Area) tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act. 1950 to any inam or the mutual rights and obligations of an inamdar and his tenants, save insofar as the said provisions are in any way inconsistent with the express provisions of this Act. The A. P. (Telangana area) Tenancy and Agricultural Lands act, 1950 deals with tenants and also protected tenants. Chapter III deals with general provisions relating to tenants and persons deemed to be tenants has been dealt with under Section 5 of the said Act. Section 19 of the said Act deals with termination of tenancy whereas Chapter IV deals with Protected tenants. It may be suffice for the present purpose to look into sections 98 and 99 of the said Act dealing with Summary eviction and Bar of jurisdiction, respectively. Even if these provisions are taken into consideration and even if the contention of the Counsel for the appellants, for arguments sake is to be accepted, the dispute is between the successors-in-interest of a permanent lessee and the tenants, the civil Court cannot entertain such a dispute either under the provisions of the A. P. (Telangana Area) abolition of Inams Act, 1955 or even in view of the specific bar under A. P. (Telangana Area) Tenancy and Agricultural lands Act, 1950 and hence in any view of the matter, the suit as framed for declaration of title and for possession, is not maintainable even if the case of the appellants/ plaintiffs has to be accepted as pleaded and proved. No doubt, the learned Counsel for the appellants had brought to my notice certain provisions of the Atiyat enquiries Act also, but the same may not be relevant for the present context. No doubt, the learned Counsel for the appellants had brought to my notice certain provisions of the Atiyat enquiries Act also, but the same may not be relevant for the present context. The learned Counsel also had drawn my attention to Chapter IV of the A. P. (Telangana Area) Land Revenue Act, 1317 fasli and placed strong reliance on sections 66, 67 and 67-A and had contended that by virtue of Section 67-A of the said act there is conferment of pattadari rights on the appellants/plaintiffs. It 13 needless to say that the subject-matter of the suit in question definitely falls within the definition of "inam" governed by A. P. (Telangana area) Abolition of Inams Act, 1955 and hence when there are specific provisions dealing with the permanent leasehold rights and also the consequences of abolition as dealt with by Section 3 of the said act, the jurisdiction of the civil Court to grant the relief prayed for in the suit is definitely barred and hence I have no hesitation in holding that the remedy available to the appellants/plaintiffs will fall definitely within the framework of the a. P. (Telangana Area) Abolition of Inams act, 1955 and hence the present suit, as framed, is not maintainable. Point (c) : ( 24 ) THE suit is for declaration of title and for possession. The appellants/plaintiffs are seeking the relief of ejectment of the respondents/defendants who are styled as tenants or certain other parties who are also included as respondents being in possession of the respective properties and no doubt certain of the parties had filed a compromise petition and the same was recorded and no doubt several of the parties had not chosen to come to the witness box, nor they made any attempt even to file written statement or to contest the matter. Whatever may be the position, the contesting defendants have taken a stand that they have been in long possession. The nature of possession of those parties, no doubt, is in dispute. It is also pertinent to note that there are certain admissions made by PW1 that certain suits were filed for the same relief by his father and reliefs were not granted. Though those details are not available, the fact remains that certain disputes were raised in this regard and the parties were unsuccessful even in prior litigations. It is also pertinent to note that there are certain admissions made by PW1 that certain suits were filed for the same relief by his father and reliefs were not granted. Though those details are not available, the fact remains that certain disputes were raised in this regard and the parties were unsuccessful even in prior litigations. Apart from all these, even as per the documentary evidence the rights claimed by 4he appellants/plaintiffs can be, at the best, the rights devolved on successors-in-interest of permanent leasehold rights of a permanent leaseholder, and nothing more. As already observed by me supra, the remedies, if any available to these parties, are to be worked out within the framework of the A. P. (Telangana Area) abolition of Inams Act, 1955. It may not be out of context if it is stated that in a suit for ejectment, the burden of proof is always on the plaintiff. In M. M. B. Catholicos v. M. P. Athanasius, AIR 1954 SC 526 , the apex Court held:"the plaintiff in ejectment suit must succeed on the strength of his own title. This can be done by adducing sufficient evidence to discharge the onus that is on him irrespective of whether the defendant has proved his case or not. A mere destruction of the defendant s title, in the absence of establishment of his own title carries the plaintiff nowhere". In C. Audilakshmamma v. A. Rama Rao, air 1973 A. P. 149, it was held that in a suit for ejectment, the plaintiff is liable to be non-suited if he fails to establish his title irrespective of the question whether the defendants have proved their ease or not. ( 25 ) HENCE, in the light of the clear legal position, it cannot be said that even the burden of proof had been successfully discharged by the appellants/plaintiffs and hence viewed from any angle, the appellants/plaintiffs are bound to fail. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed as devoid of merits. However in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, no order as to costs. ( 26 ) THE appellants plaintiffs had been agitating the litigation as indigent persons and hence it is needless to say that they are liable to pay the Court Fee payable in these proceedings, and in default, appropriate steps can be initiated.