MAHENDRAWADA VYAVASAYA KARMIKA SANGHAM Vs. SATTI VENKATA REDDY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Noticing conflict of views in two Division Bench decisions in S. Narayana v. State of A.P., (1990) 1 ALT 237 Y. Subba Reddy v. Commissioner of Endowments (1998) 1 ALT 579, the learned Judges who initially heard the appeals directed the Registrar to place the papers before the Hon'ble Chief Justice for "constituting an appropriate Bench". The learned Chief Justice in turn has directed the cases to be placed before this Full Bench. Accordingly, the appeals have come up before us.

(2.) The question posed by the learned Judges of the Division Bench at whose instance, the matter has been referred to the Full Bench is "Whether S. 75 of the A.P. Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1987 prevails over the Andhra Tenancy Act or whether it is subject to the provisions of Andhra Tenancy Act?" The question as formulated above does not strictly arise in the instant case as we shall point out later. At the same time, we deem it necessary to consider the question of correctness of the decision of this Court in Y. Subba Reddy's case (1998 (1) ALT 579) (supra) so as to dispel any misconceptions as regards the applicability of the provisions of the Tenancy Act to the Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions. We would also like to indicate at the outset that the central question which needs to be ultimately answered in the course of adjudication of these appeals is whether the suit schedule lands of which the respondent plaintiff claims to be a perpetual tenant, are excluded from the purview of A.P. (Andhra Area) Tenancy Act by reason of S. 18 thereof.

(3.) The three appeals arise out of the judgment and decree in O.S. No. 82 of 1980 on the file of Subordinate Judge, Ramachandrapuram. The suit was instituted by the plaintiff in the year 1978 in the District Court and later on transferred to the Sub-Court. Defendants 1 and 2 in the suit are the appellants respectively in A.S. Nos. 1108/1985 and 2055 of 1984. The plaintiff filed A.S. No. 1698 of 1985. His appeal is limited to the relief of damages which were not granted by the trial Court.