CHIMMAPUDI SUBRAHMANYAM Vs. GADIPALLI NARASIMHAIAH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The problem that poses itself in these Civil Revision Petitions is one that bears on sections 5 and 32 of the Hyderabad Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1950 (XXI of 1950) - herein after referred to as the Act. The facts material for the purpose of this enquiry, which could be gathered from the orders under revision and which are not in dispute, are briefly these. One Ramalingayya died possessed of considerable properties including those which are the subject-matter of the Civil Revision Petitions. Sometime before his death, Ramalingayya adopted the petitioner. After the death of Ramalingayya in or about 1941, the petitioner became the sole owner of these properties and got into possession thereof. Shortly, thereafter, his adoptive mother claimed these properties as the heir of Ramalingayya, questioning the Validity and factum of adoption of the petitioner. This led the petitioner to bring a suit in the Court of the District Munsif, Khammam, for a declaration that he was the adopted son of Ramalingayya. Pending the suit, the adoptive mother, who is the fourth respondent in C.R.P. No. 36 of 1958, invoked section 59 of the Land Revenue Act. Purporting to act under this section, the proper revenue authorities registered the fourth respondent as pattedar, dispossessed the petitioner of all the lands and put her in possession thereof. This was, of course, subject to the result of the suit laid by the petitioner. This led the petitioner to amend the plaint suing for possession. During the pendency of the suit, the fourth respondent was prohibited by an injunction from dealing with the lands in any way. Despite this, she leased them out to respondents 1, 2 and 3 in C.R.P. No. 36 of 1958 and to respondents 1 to 8 in C.R.P. No. 1128 of 1959 and they cultivated the lands for some years. Ultimately, it was found that the petitioner was adopted by Ramalingayya and, consequently, all the properties of the joint family survived to the petitioner. Thus, the title of the petitioner to these lands was recognised, which means that the claim made by the fourth respondent in C.R.P. No. 36 of 1958 was negatived. The petitioner put the decree in execution and got delivery of possession through Court. The respondents also executed a letter relinquishing all their interests in the properties. Notwithstanding this a year later, they sought to recover possession of the properties under section 32 of the Act, the contents of which will be set out in the appropriate context.

(2.) These petitions were contested by the petitioner on various grounds such as that section 32 was inapplicable to a case where possession was taken through Court and the respondents did not offer any resistence thereto but on the other hand they signified their willingness to surrender possession even without the process of Court and, secondly, that the respondents could not claim the benefits of the Act in that they did not answer the description of 'tenants ' within the contemplation of that Act. This opposition did not prevail with the Tahsildar, who thought that the persons in possession of the properties in question could not be deprived of their rights which they acquired by reason of being in occupation of the lands at the time the Act came into effect. In the result, the petitioner was directed to re-dclivcr possession of these properties to the respondents.

(3.) The appeal carried by the petitioner to the District Collector, Khammam, did not prove fruitful. In the opinion of the District Collector, by the time the Tenancy Act came into force the respondents were cultivating the lands and their physical possession could not be disturbed and at the most the legal heir was eligible only to have his name registered as the pattedar. The Collector remarked : "It is upto him to refuse to sell the lands to the tenants under section 38-E if his total holdings are less than three family holdings. This does not in any way change the possession of the tenants."