GANTA BABY Vs. GANTA PRASADA RAO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE second appeal is directed against the judgment and decree in A.S. No.72 of 2005 on the file of the IV Additional District Judge (Fast Track Court) at Khammam, dated 28-09-2010.

(2.) THE parties are referred to herein as they are arrayed before the trial Court. THE plaintiff sued the defendant for declaration of her title over the suit schedule property of Ac.3.29 guntas in survey Nos.124 and 125 of Lingapalem claiming the same to have been gifted to her under a gift deed, dated 22-06-1988 by Ganta Savitramma.

(3.) WHILE so, the defendant filed I.A. No.108 of 2005 claiming that the issue of jurisdiction should be decided as a preliminary issue in view of the order of the High Court in Criminal R.C. No.1020 of 2000. He contended that the Civil Court has no jurisdiction in view of a dispute regarding tenancy also being involved. The plaintiff claimed that the written statement specifically pleaded the property to be not the property of the plaintiff and therefore, the suit for declaration, recovery of possession, etc., which cannot be decided by the Tribunal, is maintainable before Civil Court. After hearing both sides, the trial Court passed an order on 21-04-2005 referring to the rival contentions and the history of the dispute and the observations of this Court in Criminal R.C. No.1020 of 2000 to the effect that once it is concluded that there is relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties inter se, then the jurisdiction is vested with the Special Officer under the Act and the party in possession cannot be ousted except in accordance with the provisions of the Act. The High Court also observed that it is always open for the parties to workout their rights and liabilities before an appropriate forum. The trial Court further noted that the three precedents cited by the plaintiff are not applicable to the facts of the case, while the decision reported in 1957(2) An.W.R. 478 read with the observations of the High Court in Criminal R.C. No.1020 of 2000 indicates that the Civil Court has no jurisdiction. On the precedents relied on, the trial Court observed that if any question arises whether a particular tenant is a protected tenant, the exclusive jurisdiction to decide that question is only conferred on the Tahsildar and the Civil Court has no jurisdiction. Accordingly, the trial Court allowed the interlocutory application without costs and consequently, dismissed the suit without costs by its order dated 21-04-2005.