APTHIRI MAHESWARA REDDI Vs. ARCHAKAM SRINIVASA DIKSHITULU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS second Appeal is by the 13th defendant in the suit. The suit was filed for permanent injunction restraining the 13th defendant along with 12 other defendants from interfering with the possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule properties. The 13th defendant is concerned only with Ac. 1 -37 cents in S. No. 313/1, old number being S. No. 31. The case of the plaintiff was that under Ex. A -1, dated 10 -5 -1946, permanent lease was granted in favour of one V.V. Seshacharyulu, and later, however, there was exchange of land by way of a deed of exchange, between the plaintiff and the late V.V. Seshacharyulu, on 30 -7 -1961 the estate was taken over and thereafter, the defendant filed a petition under section 15 of the Madras Estates Abolition and conversion into Ryotwari Act of 1942, and obtained a ryotwari patta. Four years thereafter, the plaintiff also filed a similar petition and obtained a ryotwari patta. Having come to know of it, the defendants filed an appeal to the Director of Settlements, which was dismissed as time barred. Further revision to the Board of Revenue also resulted in dismissal. However, since the defendants were trying to interfere, with the possession and enjoyment of the land, the suit was filed praying for permanent injunction. The first court dismissed the suit. However, on appeal before the Appellate Court additional evidence was let in Under Exs. A -7 and A -8, which are the orders passed by the Director of Settlements in appeal, and the Board of Revenue on revision referred to above. The proceeding under section 145 Cr.P.C. initiated earlier, which ended in favour of the plaintiff also was filed demonstrating that the possession of the land was with the plaintiff. Two points that were framed by the appellate Court, are: -

(2.) WHETHER the injunction should not be granted against the defendants in view of their better title?

(3.) THE decision relied on by the learned counsel for the respondent, has been thoroughly misconceived. It is quite evident from it, when it lays down that - -"though there is no express provision under the Act, the jurisdiction of the Civil Court under Section 9 CPC, is ousted to agitate the matters covered under the Act, including the grant of ryotwari patta under section 11 of the Act. It is conclusive and not liable to question in a civil suit."