Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2008 DIGILAW 294 (AP)

Peddamatam Siddamma v. M. Veeraiah

2008-04-22

P.S.NARAYANA

body2008
JUDGMENT: On 19-9-1997 this Court made the following Order in the Second Appeal :- "In view of the substantial question of law raised in ground Nos.10, 11 and 12, the Second Appeal is admitted." On 19-9-1997 itself in C.M.P.No.13982 of 1997, interim stay was granted subject to condition of the appellant depositing costs within four weeks from today. 2. The substantial questions of law, on the strength of which the Second Appeal had been admitted, as specified above, are as hereunder:- 1. Whether the Courts below right in entertaining a suit for declaration of title and possession when, certificate is granted under the A.P.Inams Abolition (TA) Act, 1955, when title is granted by the competent authority under the Act, whether the suit is barred under the Act. 2. Whether the Courts below committed an error of law in decreeing the suit basing on revenue records such as Ex.A.16, Ex.A.21, Ex.A.22 and Ex.A.24. Whether the Courts erred in not following the settled principles of law as laid down by the highest Court of the land, that the revenue records maintained for the purpose of collecting land revenue and does not confirm any title as laid down in 1996 (6) Supreme 385. 3. Whether the Courts below committed an error of law in usrupting the jurisdiction of competent authority under Inam Abolition Act in decreeing the suit for declaration of title and possession to nullify the title granted under the provisions of A.P.Abolition of Inams (TA) Act, 1955. 3. Sri Ashok Kumar, the learned Counsel representing appellants had taken this Court through the findings recorded by the Court of first instance and also the appellate Court and would maintain that the suit claiming the relief of declaration of title and recovery of possession itself is not maintainable since the Civil Court has no jurisdiction to entertain such suit. The learned Counsel placed strong reliance on certain decisions to substantiate his submissions. The learned Counsel placed strong reliance on certain decisions to substantiate his submissions. While further elaborating his submissions, the Counsel would maintain that though common Judgment was delivered by the learned District Munsif, Alampur, in O.S.No.25/94 and O.S.No.62/94, since the nature of reliefs prayed for being different and the issues tried and decided being different, though one appeal alone had been preferred - A.S.No.18/96 on the file of Subordinate Judge, Gadwal, as against the Decree and Judgment made in O.S.No.25/94, the findings recorded in the other suit would not operate as res judicata and perfectly the present Second Appeal is maintainable as against the said Decree and Judgment made in A.S.No.18/96. The Counsel also incidentally made certain submissions relating to certain of the findings recorded in W.P.No.1322/99 and would maintain that the same had been suspended in W.A.M.P.No.2826/2004 in W.A.No.1538/2004 and in the light of the same and also in the light of the fact that the specific question of inherent lack of jurisdiction of a Civil Court had not been decided, it may be just and proper to make an order of remand. 4. On the contrary, Sri Prasad, the learned Counsel representing respondent would maintain that in the light of the nature of the common Judgment and the common findings recorded and in the light of the nature of the issues which had been decided in both the suits, preferring an appeal as against one of the Decrees alone cannot be maintained and when such First Appeal itself is not maintainable as against the common Judgment in the absence of an appeal being preferred as against the Decree made in the other suit in the said common Judgment, the present Second Appeal need not be heard on merits and the same to be dismissed on the said ground alone. The Counsel placed strong reliance on the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in PALA NARAYANA v. M.VEERA SOMAIAH and would maintain that in the light of the same, the other questions need not be decided. The Counsel also further had drawn the attention of this Court through the issues settled and would maintain that the question of inherent lack of jurisdiction of a Civil Court had not been settled as a specific issue, and when that being so, at the stage of Second Appeal, the same cannot be permitted. The Counsel also further had drawn the attention of this Court through the issues settled and would maintain that the question of inherent lack of jurisdiction of a Civil Court had not been settled as a specific issue, and when that being so, at the stage of Second Appeal, the same cannot be permitted. Even otherwise, the Counsel would submit that on merits also, in the light of the concurrent findings recorded by both the Court of first instance and also the appellate Court, the Second Appeal to be dismissed. Incidentally, the Counsel also made certain submissions relating to certain of the findings recorded in W.P.No.1322/99 and also the pendency of W.A.No.1538/2004 relating to the subject matter of the present litigation. 5. Heard the Counsel. Perused the oral and documentary evidence available on record and also the findings recorded by the Court of first instance and also the appellate Court. 6. For the purpose of convenience, the parties hereinafter would be referred to as 'plaintiff' and 'defendants' as shown in O.S.No.25/94 on the file of District Munsif, Alampur. 7. O.S.No.25/94 was filed by the plaintiff praying for declaration of title, recovery of possession and other reliefs. The 1st defendant in the said suit O.S.No.25/94 filed another suit O.S.No.62/94 on the file of District Munsif, Alampur, praying for permanent injunction as against the defendants, and the plaintiff in O.S.No.25/94 is shown as 1st defendant in the said suit. No doubt, there are other defendants as well. 8. The 1st defendant in the said suit O.S.No.25/94 filed another suit O.S.No.62/94 on the file of District Munsif, Alampur, praying for permanent injunction as against the defendants, and the plaintiff in O.S.No.25/94 is shown as 1st defendant in the said suit. No doubt, there are other defendants as well. 8. The case of the plaintiff in O.S.No.25/94 is that the suit land among other lands was his ancestral property; his father Suguraiah executed a will on 30-1-1963 under a sound state bequeathing his entire estate to the plaintiff (son), defendant No.1 (wife) and four daughters; plaintiff and three daughters were minors then; the estate was subsequently divided among all these persons about 20 years back as per the will; subsequently, defendant No.1 made a declaration before Land Reforms Tribunal in C.C.No.1632/ALP/75 showing all respective shares; plaintiff, a minor then, was under care and protection of defendant No.1; so, she made an application to the District Revenue Officer, Mahabubnagar, for correcting necessary entries in Khasara Pahanies with regard to the suit land and land in Survey No.255/1 as belonging to the plaintiff and land in Sy.No.214/1 belonging to her; the District Revenue Officer accordingly ordered for necessary corrections in Case No.B.8/14/ROR/179, dated 15-7-1987; necessary corrections were carried out for in revenue records; plaintiff was given pass book also for the suit land; defendant No.1 had to join the plaintiff in making the above applications for occupancy certificates; so, it was issued accordingly in her name; however, it had not conferred any title to her; yet defendant No.1 tried to interfere in her possession; so, the suit was filed firstly for permanent injunction. The plaintiff was subsequently amended which states that after the suit was filed, defendant No.1 filed O.S.No.62/94 on the file of this Court for permanent injunction over the same land and obtained temporary injunction and encroached the land. So, relief of declaration of title of delivery of possession also was added. 9. 1st defendant filed written statement stating that the plaintiff was not aged about 40 years, but was only 34 years when the suit was filed; she admitted the relationship among the parties to the suit, the will and the division of properties about 20 years back among the heirs of Suguraiah. 9. 1st defendant filed written statement stating that the plaintiff was not aged about 40 years, but was only 34 years when the suit was filed; she admitted the relationship among the parties to the suit, the will and the division of properties about 20 years back among the heirs of Suguraiah. She further stated that at the time of family settlement, Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Abolition of Inams Act 1955 had come before and so the suit land and land in Sy.No.255/1 being Inam lands had vested in the State Government and so patta lands were only partitioned among the heirs, these two Inam lands were not partitioned; however, the plaintiff and defendant No.1 remained joint thereafter also and were enjoying together both the lands; so, they both approached the Revenue Divisional Officer, Gadwal for occupancy certificate in respect of these two lands; accordingly, the R.D.O., issued the same on 6-6-88 in their favour, subsequently, there was a settlement between them and plaintiff had taken land in Sy.No.255/1 and defendant the suit land; the revenue records were subsequently mutated accordingly ever since defendant No.1 has been in exclusive possession of the suit land; but misunderstandings arose between the plaintiff and defendant No.1 on the instigation of his father-in-law, who is a retired Mandal Revenue Officer and got the suit filed to harass defendant No.1; plaintiff was not in possession of the suit land; when the suit was filed so, she pleaded to dismiss the suit with costs. 10. Defendant Nos. 2 and 3 adopted the written statement of defendant No.1. After the amendment, though the defendants filed additional written statement, with the same averments as averred in the written statement. 11. On the strength of the pleadings, the following issues were settled:- 1. Whether the suit land fall to the share of plaintiff in their family settlement about 20 years back? 2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for permanent injunction against the defendant over the suit land? 3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for delivery of possession of suit land from defendants? 4. To what relief? 12. After the institution of the said suit, as already aforesaid, the 1st defendant in the suit instituted O.S.No.62/94 against the plaintiff shown as 1st defendant and others for perpetual injunction and in the light of the respective pleadings of the parties, the following issues were settled in O.S.No.62/94:- 1. 4. To what relief? 12. After the institution of the said suit, as already aforesaid, the 1st defendant in the suit instituted O.S.No.62/94 against the plaintiff shown as 1st defendant and others for perpetual injunction and in the light of the respective pleadings of the parties, the following issues were settled in O.S.No.62/94:- 1. Whether the suit is barred by res judicata following disposal of C.C.No.1632/APL/75 by Land Reforms Tribunal, Alampur? 2) Whether the suit for mere permanent injunction without seeking declaration of title is maintainable? 3) Whether plaintiff is entitled for permanent injunction over suit land? 4) To what relief? 13. After the issues in both the suits had been settled, the Counsel representing the parties in both the suits filed a joint memo for clubbing of both the suits which had been ordered and common evidence had been recorded in O.S.No.25/94. The evidence of P.Ws. 1 to 5 and D.Ws. 1 and 2 had been recorded. Ex.A.1 to Ex.A.27 and Ex.B.1 to Ex.B.17 had been marked. The Court of first instance observed and also recorded a finding that Issues 1, 2 and 3 in O.S.No.25/94 to be answered in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants and Issue No.2 in O.S.No.62/94 also to be answered in favour of the plaintiffs and against the defendant and issue No.3 in O.S.No.62/94 in favour of defendants and against the plaintiff and ultimately, decreed the suit O.S.No.25/94 and dismissed the suit O.S.No.62/94. For reasons best known, the decree made in O.S.No.62/94 was left unchallenged and the decree made in O.S.No.25/94 alone had been carried by way of appeal A.S.No.18/96 on the file of Subordinate Judge, Gadwal. It is needless to say that common evidence had been recorded in both the suit and common findings had been recorded, though certain issues had been decided separately and ultimately by virtue of common Judgment, one suit was decreed and another suit was dismissed and the findings recorded in relation to O.S.No.62/94 thus had attained finality. It is no doubt true that this ground relating to the maintainability of one appeal alone in the absence of another appeal before the appellate Court was not seriously argued. The relevant issues in both the suits already had been specified above. It is needless to say that common findings had been recorded and though certain specific findings had been recorded while recording specific issues, the findings do overlap. The relevant issues in both the suits already had been specified above. It is needless to say that common findings had been recorded and though certain specific findings had been recorded while recording specific issues, the findings do overlap. Certain submissions were made in relation to Section 23 and also Sections 3, 4, 5, 7, 8 and 9 of the Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Abolition of Inams Act, 1955. Reliance also was placed on B.NAHGA REDDY v. MATTAM PARVATAIAH ; CHAMA NARASIMHA REDDY v. JOINT COLLECTOR, RANGA REDDY DISTRICT, HYD. ; LOKRAJ v. KISHAN LAL; IBRAHIM KHAN v. GOWRAM KONDAIAH ; S.VENKATRAMAIAH v. K.VENKATASWAMY ; VANKAMAMIDI VENKATA SUBBA RAO v. CHATLAPALLI SEETHARAMARATNA RANGANAYAKAMMA ; LUKRAJ v. KISHANLAL ; and K.KRISHNA v. T.T.DEVASTHANAMS . Further reliance was placed on JAI SINGH v. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS wherein it was observed that parallel remedies in respect of the same matter cannot be pursued at the same time. 14. It is also true that though a plea had been taken relating to the aspect of jurisdiction in the pleading, no specific issue as such had been settled. The findings recorded in W.P.No.1322/99 and the pendency of W.A.No.1538/2004 and the other contentions advanced before this Court relating to the inherent lack of jurisdiction of the Civil Court by virtue of Sections 23, 3, 4, 5, 7, 8 and 9 of the Act aforesaid, need not detain this Court any longer for the reason that in the light of the view expressed by the Division Bench of this Court in Pala Narayana's case (referred 1 supra) when a common Judgment had been delivered, common findings had been recorded and only one of the Decrees had been challenged and the other findings in the other suit had been left unchallenged by non-preferring of an appeal, such appeal cannot be maintained since the findings recorded in the other suit having attained finality operate as res judicata. Hence, this Court is not inclined to express any opinion relating to other questions which had been argued in elaboration by the Counsel representing appellants. In the light of the same, this Court is left with no other option except to dismiss the Second Appeal and accordingly the Second Appeal is dismissed. However, in the light of the peculiar facts and circumstances the parties to bear their own costs.