CHOUDARI RAMA Vs. QURESHI BEE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is the legal respresentative of one Choudhari Rama, judgment debtor No. II in O. S. No. 72/50. The suit was filed Particion of the plaint schedule properties and for possession thereof inter se between the persons having right, title and Interest therein, Choudhari Rama was impleadcd co-nomine as party-defendant to the suit because he was in possession as tenant of certain lands, the details of which is unnecessary to delienate except the land in Survey No, 18/1, admeasuring Ac. 4-32 guntas S.No. 18/2 admeasuring Ac 2-10 guntas of dry land in the village Paregaon since we are concerned in this revision petition only about these lands The suitwas decreed At the time of laying the execution in LA, No, 64/61. Choudhari Rama died and the petitioner was impleaded as his legal representative to the execution petition Two Execution petitions have been laid viz., E.P. Nos. 12 and 13 of 1978 for delivery of possession of these and other lands Notices were issued to the petitioner. After service, he objected to the execution by an application dated 20-10-1978, obviously under section 47 of C.P.C.

(2.) In was contended there in that the decree under execution wasr nullity because the petitioner is a protected tenant under the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Tenancy & Agricultural Lands Act, 1950 The Tahsildar, in exercise of the powers conferred on him under the provisions of the Act. issued a tenancy certificate (Ex.B-1) declaring his father, Choudhari Rama, as protected tenant in respect of the lands in their possession. The civil court has no jurisdiction to execute the decree. The decree holder filed an application before the Tenancy Court for ejectment of the petitioner. It was dismissed by the Tenancy Court, Sirpur which was allowed to become final. The tenant, Choudhari Rama had other legal representatives, viz., his sons and daughters apart from the petitioner. They were not brought on record. All of them are heirs to Choudhari Rama, the tenant, who also succeedped to the estate. Without impleading them the execution proceedings cannot go on The Legislature ousted the jurisdiction of the civil court under the provisions of Section 99 of the Tenancy Act. Therefore the decree is inexeutable. To substantiate his contentions, he examined himself as RW1. and got marked certain documents, Exs B-1 toB. According to him his father was a protected tenant in respect of S. No. 18 comprising of Ac. 6-00 and odd situated at Paregaon village and his father died intestats He was also a protected tenant in respect of S.No. 84. Ex. B-1, the protected tenancy certificate discloses the above fact For the said objection, from the record, it would appear that the decree holders did not file any counter. No. evidence was also adduced in rebuttal to the evidence adduced by the petitioner

(3.) It may be mentioned here that E-P:2/75 possession of land bearing S.No. 84. was taken and that other has become final. Therefore we are not concerned with respect to S. No. 84