BEERAPPA Vs. YESHWANTRAO ALIAS VASANTRAO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a revision petition under S.91 of the Hyderabad Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1950 filed against the order dt.19-9-1969 on the file of the Deputy Commissioner, Gulbarga in file No.241/Apl./60-61.

(2.) The petitioner and respondent-1 gave a joint petition to the Assistant Commissioner, Gulbarga, requesting to accord permission for the alienation of a land bearing S.No.448 in Baswantvadi Kadaganchi village, Taluka Aland. The first respondent claimed to be the owner and the petitioner intended to buy the same from the first respondent. Before the said petition was disposed of by the Assistant Commissioner, two persons by name Rama Rao and Hanumantrao filed an objection petition before the Assistant Commissioner, Gulbarga, requesting him not to grant permission for alienation. On 23-9-1959, respondents 2 & 3 herein, namely, Geetha Bai and Gangabai filed another objection petition before the Assistant Commissioner stating that they had filed a suit against respondent-1 and had obtained a decree in Suit No.152/1/1959-60 on the file of the Addl. Munsiff, Gulbarga, declaring that they were the owners of the land in question and restraining the first respondent from alienating it. On a subsequent date i.e. on 24-1-1961, the first respondent filed a petition before the Assistant Commissioner admitting that a decree had been passed against him as stated by respondents-2 and 3. He therefore, pleaded before theAssistant Commissioner that he could not alienate the property in favour of the petitioner. The Assistant Commissioner, after hearing the parties, refused to grant the prayer made by the petitioner in the application which he had filed jointly with respondent-1. Against the said order, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Deputy Commissioner, Gulbarga, who by his order dt.16-10-1961, dismissed it. Against the order of the Deputy Commissioner, a civil revision petition was filed before this Court. In that petition, the order of the Deputy Commissioner, was set aside and the case was remanded to him with a direction to give a finding on the question raised by the petitioner with regard to the jurisdiction of the Munsiff's Court, Gulbarga, and to decide the case. After the case was remanded, the Deputy Commissioner, considered the matter again and dismissed it by his order dt.19-9-1966. Against that order, the present petition is filed by the petitioner.

(3.) The contention urged by the petitioner before the Deputy Commissioner and in this Court is that the land in question was situated within the territorial jurisdiction of the Court of the Munsiff at Aland and therefore the decree obtained by respondents-2 and 3 in a suit filed in the Munsiff's Court, Gulbarga, is unenforceable. In other words, it is contended that the decree passed by the Court having no territorial jurisdiction is a nullity and cannot be acted upon.