MOHAMMED MOINUDDIN Vs. SADAT ALI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against the judgment and decree of the Court of the Civil Judge at Bidar dated 4th July, 1987 passed in O.S. 386/86 on its file.

(2.) Brief facts that are necessary to be stated for disposal of this appeal are as follows :- The suit schedule lands were inam lands within the meaning of that expression as defined by the Hyderabad Abolition of Inams Act, 1954. One Akkamma Bai and others claimed occupancy rights in respect of suit schedule lands. Among others who claimed occupancy rights, were the defendants in the suit or their predecessor-in-title. The claim of the defendants before the Collector who was the authority to go into the question of conferment of occupancy rights, was rejected and Akkamma Bai was registered as an occupant in the year 1962 by an order dated 29th February, 1962. It would be useful to state at this stage that by the time all these came to be done, the district of Bidar had stood transferred to the new State of Karnataka on 1-11-1956. Therefore, in place of Collector, the Special Deputy Commissioner was the competent authority to register the occupants or to grant or refuse occupancy rights in respect of inam lands. Similarly, under the Hyderabad Inam Abolition Act of 1954, the Karnataka Revenue Tribunal became the appellate Authority. Akkamma Bai left the properties of which she had been registered as an occupant in favour of her daughter-in-law Rajamathi Bai who sold part of the lands to the plaintiff for a consideration of Rs. 11,000/- and executed a sale deed in his favour. However, in 1967, the Karnataka Revenue Tribunal by its order dated 29-7-1967, set aside the order of the Special Deputy Commissioner passed in 1962 conferring occupancy rights on Akkamma Bai and remanded the matter to the Special Deputy Commissioner for disposal in accordance with the observations made in the course of that order. On remand, the Special Deputy Commissioner conferred the occupancy rights on the defendants, who, pursuant to that order, sought possession necessitating the plaintiff to approach the civil Court for several prayers including one for declaration of title and permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with his possession.

(3.) The defendants resisted the prayer in the Original suit inter alia contending that once the occupancy rights were granted in their favour under Hyderabad Inams Abolition Act of 1954 by virtue of the provisions contained in the said Act, the Civil Courts jurisdiction to go into the question of title was barred and any remedy the plaintiff had, was only in accordance with the provisions i.e,, to approach the appellate Tribunal or its successor. En the light of that particular plea in defence, issue No. 8 was framed and that is as follows :-