SEETHAL SINGH Vs. MAHMOOD SHARIFF

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The unsuccessful defendant in both the courts is the appellant. He initially claims to be a tenant but subsequently he claims that he purchased the property from the inamdar and became the owner thereof. The first respondent is the plaintiff. He filed the suit for partition and the suit was decreed and on appeal, it was confirmed. The appellant was impleaded as 12th defendant, it is the contention of the plaintiff that it is a patta land and that it is liable for partition. On the other hand it is the conten lion of the appellant that it is an inam land and is an old occupant as Kobiz-e-kadim. He is entitled to occupancy certificate which was given under Ex.B-15. He a!so contended that the Civil Court has no jurisdiction. His contetions have been nagatived by both the courts. The appellate Court has held that since the proceedings have not yet been completed the Civil Court has got jurisdiction. On that view, the Appellate Court confirmed the deeree of the trial eourt.

(2.) In this appeal, Sri M.L. Ramakrishna Rao, learned counsel for the appellant contends that after obtaining the patta under Ex. B-15, the plaintiff took proceedings before the District Collector, Ranga Reddy District and got the order under Ex.B-15, set aside and the matter has been remanded to the D.R.D., Hyderabad, West (Inams Collector) for enquiry de novo. Challenging that order, the appellant filed W.P.No. 2173/1980 in this court and this court dismissed the writ petition holding that the apprehension of the appellant (Petitioner in the writ petition) that the oreinal authority will not enquire into all the questions which will be raised before it, has absolutely no basis. The enquiry is now pending before the D R D (Inams Collector). It is also contended that by virtue of the abolition of the inam, the Civil Court has no jurisdiction.

(3.) Sri. Madhava Reddy, learned counsel for the respondent, contends that the Civil Court has given a finding that it is not an mam land and that there is no evidence that it was an inam land and it was abolished. It is a patta land. Even assuming that it is an mam land, still so long as patta is not granted, the Civil Court continves to have jurisdiction and even the mam land can be partitioned between the heirs concerned. The appellant being only a tenant, he cannot have any higher rights than the owner. Therefore, the decree passed by the trial Court and confirmed by the appellate Court is legal.