GOVT OF A P Vs. M A RAZACK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Government of A.P. represented by its Chief Secretary and two others, the unsuccessful defendants in O.S. No.260 of 1985 on the file of VIII Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad and in A.S. No.115 of 1995 on the file of II Member Tribunal For Disciplinary Proceedings-cum-VII Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, had preferred the present Second Appeal assailing the concurrent findings recorded by both the Courts below raising the following substantial question of law.

(2.) The learned Government Pleader for Land Ceiling in all fairness had submitted that except the above substantial question of law, no other substantial question of law would arise for consideration in the present Second Appeal and all other questions are only ancillary questions in relation thereto. The learned Counsel also would maintain that no doubt, concurrent findings had been recorded by both the Courts below, but however, in the light of Exs.B-3, B-4, B-7, B-8 and B-10 definitely it can be taken that this is a notified evacuee property and since it is a question relating to the jurisdiction of the Civil Court to entertain the suit, the same can be raised at any point of time. The learned Counsel also had pointed out that though a specific plea in this regard was not taken and no issue relating thereto was framed, it is not as though the respondent- plaintiff had been taken by surprise since this aspect was raised and argued in detail even in the Court of first instance and the same was discussed at length by the learned VIII Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad at para No.13 of the judgment. The learned Counsel also submitted that though Exs.B-1 to B-10 were marked on behalf of appellants-defendants, none had been examined. But, however, in the light of Sections 28 and 46 of the Administration of the Evacuee Property Act (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act' for the purpose of convenience), the jurisdiction of the Civil Court definitely can be said to be barred to entertain a suit of this nature. The learned Counsel also made elaborate submissions in relation to the nature of the prayer which had been prayed for in this suit and had concluded that these reliefs definitely cannot be granted by the Civil Court. Then the disputed question in controversy is whether the property is evacuee property or not. The learned Counsel had also taken this Court through the relevant provisions of the Act in detail in this regard.

(3.) Per contra, Sri A. Anantha Reddy, the learned Counsel representing the respondent-plaintiff had taken this Court through the evidence of P.W.I and also Exs-A-1 to A-18 in detail and had commented that though a question relating to jurisdiction of the Civil Court had been raised, in the facts and circumstances, it cannot be said that it is a pure question of law and such ground may have to be substantiated by sufficient material. The learned Counsel for the respondent-plaintiff also would maintain that there was no plea in the written statement nor any issue was framed in this regard, except making certain submissions at the time of arguments and definitely this would not be sufficient for the purpose of substantiating the question of jurisdiction. The learned Counsel for the respondent-plaintiff also had drawn attention of this Court to Exs.A-1 and A-3 title deeds and also Exs.A-2 and A-4 plans annexed thereto. The learned Counsel for the respondent-plaintiff also had drawn the attention of the Court to Ex.A-5 the judgment of this Court dated 15-11-1988 in Writ Petition No.2270 of 1985 quashing the Government's claim in relation to the land in question. The learned Counsel for the respondent-plaintiff also submitted that no further action had been initiated in pursuance of the directions if any, made in the said writ petition and the said order had attained finality. The learned Counsel for the respondent-plaintiff also made elaborate submissions in relation to Ex.A-16 equallent to Ex.B-1 Memorandum dated 6-12-1967 and had contended that in the light of the same, it cannot lie in the mouth of the Government to contend otherwise. The learned Counsel for the respondent-plaintiff also referred to Exs.A-17 and A-18 the judgments of the Special Court under A.P. Land Grabbing Act, dated 28-7-1993 and had submitted that these judgments would amply establish the case of the respondent- plaintiff. The learned Counsel for the respondent-plaintiff also placed reliance on a decision reported in Siddu Venkappa Devadiga v. Smt. Rangu S. Devadiga and others, (1977) 3 SCC 532 and had contended that the Appellate Court normally cannot go outside the pleadings and make out a new case. The learned Counsel for the respondent-plaintiff ultimately concluded stating that at any rate no one was examined on behalf of the appellants and in the absence of any material so show that the property is a declared evacuee property, there is no question of considering the question whether the suit is barred by virtue of the provisions of Sections 28 and 46 of the Act or not. The learned Counsel for the respondent-plaintiff ultimately concluded that this being a Second Appeal and concurrent findings had been recorded by both the Courts below, such findings not to be disturbed by this Court.