C H LINGIAH Vs. MUNEERUNNISSA BEGUM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Second Appeal has been referred to a Bench by our learned brother Srinivasachari, J., as, in his opinion, till now the point for decision had not arisen in this form and that it was desirable that a Bench should consider it. The question which has been posed is whether a civil Court can go into the validity of a certificate granted by a Tahsildar in the case of service inam lands to which the Hyderabad Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act (XXI of 1950) is inapplicable ?

(2.) The facts out of which this question has arisen are that, the respondent,. Muneerunnissa Begum, claiming to be the successor-in-interest of one Tasaduq Hussain, an inamdar, filed a suit on 4th June, 1952, against the appellant for an injunction restraining him from interfering with her possession. During the course of the trial of the suit, the respondent-plaintiff filed an application for amendment of the plaint on 28th July, 1953, asking for the relief for possession of the property. Evidently, permission was granted so that the suit was converted from one for an injunction into one for possession. The plaintiff averred that before the Police action the lands had been leased out to the appellant, but subsequently the Collector by his order gave possession of the said lands to the plaintiff-respondent and that after she had obtained possession, the defendant trespassed into the land and dispossessed her.

(3.) The appellant raised several defences and contended that he had been in possession of the suit properties for a long time and that he could not be evicted. The respondent-plaintiff filed a suit in the District Munsif's Court, Medak, and that Court decreed the suit for possession in respect of Survey No. 680 and dismissed it with regard to Survey Nos. 571 and 569, on the ground that there were no specific orders of the Taluqdar, nor were these survey numbers mentioned in the Girdawar's Report for giving possession. Against this decree of the Munsif, both parties appealed to the first appellate Court which allowed the appeal of the respondent-plaintiff and dismissed the defendant's appeal. In effect, the respondent- plaintiff's suit was decreed in toto. Against this judgment and decree the defendant has filed this Second Appeal. Srinivasachari, J., was of the view that there is ample evidence in the case of the land being an inam land and according to him,