S VEERA REDDY Vs. CH CHANDRAIAH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellants in L.P.A. No. 61 of 1986 are respondents 3 and 4 in C.R.P. No.665 of 1994 and the petitioners in the said C.R.P. are respondents 1,2 and 4 in the L.P.A.

(2.) The subject matter of dispute in these two cases is the same. The controversy is aboutan extent of 9 acres of land in Survey No.91 of Bowenpally village of Secundera bad. The said land was an in am land, which was abolished under the Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Abolition of Inams Act (Act No.VIII of 1955), for short, "the Inams abolition Act". One Atchi Reddy was declared as a protected tenant of the said land under the Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act (Act No. XXI of 1950), for short,''theTenancy Act". Claiming to be transfereesof the interest of the said protected tenant, Atchi Reddy, under a document said to have been executed by him on Februarys, 1963 (Ex.A.1)in favour of the appellants, they asserted to be in possession of the land. Respondents 1 to 3 and 7 to 11, are heirs of one Sattaiah who set up a rival claim that he was in possession of the said land after the said protected tenant surrendered his tenancy rights, under the Tenancy Act, in favour of the erstwhile inamdar Gulam Moinuddin on November 18, 1966 (Ex.B.16) and that the said Gulam Moinuddin had entered into an agreement for sale of the said land in his favour on November 20,1966 and thereafter released the land in his favour on April 28,1969. A dispute a rose with regard to the possession of the said land. The Executive Magistrate passed preliminary order on October 21,1967. The land was then attached and taken possession of by the Executive Magistrate in M.C.No.23 of 1968 in proceedings initiated under Section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. On May 23,1968 the above said M.C. was disposed of holding that the appellants herein were in possession of the land on the relevant date. The matter was carried in revision to the High Court in R.C. No.310 of 1969. The High Court by its order dated April 24,1970 allowed the said Revision Caseand held that the said Sattaiah was in possession of the land in question. Questioning the said order of the High Court and claiming declaration of the title and perpetual injunction against the said respondents restraining them from interfering with the possession of the appellants who will hereinafter be referred toas "plaintiffs" filed O.S.32 of 1970 on the file of the Munsif-Magistrate, Hyderabad West,. The said respondents, hereinafter referred to as "the defendants", contested the suit, inter alia, contending that Gulam Moinuddin and his brother executed an agreement in favour of the 1st defendant conveying the said land and pursuant thereto possession of the land washanded over to them. The possession of the land was earlier held by the protected tenant, who made an application to the Tahsildar offering to surrender his right. The surrender was accepted. Thereafter, the defendants came into possession of the land. It is further stated that the said protected tenant filed O.S. 53 of 1966 against the plaintiffs but the suit was dismissed for default. They denied that the protected tenant suffered collusive decrees in O.S.No. 21 of 1966 and O.S. No. 24 of 1967 on the file of that court. They also denied execution of the lease deed in favour of the plaintiff and laid a counter claim that they had got title from Gulam Moinuddin and hisbrother, erstwhile inamdars, and that they came into possession of the land in E.P.7 of 1967 on April 25,1967, in execution of the decree passed in O.S.No. 65 of 1964. They denied that the plaintiffs were in possession of the land from February 8, 1963 and claimed to be in possession till their possession was disturbed by the revenue authorities pursuant to the preliminary order of the Magistrate in October, 1967. It is stated that the plaintiffs' possession was by virtue of the order of the Magistrate in October, 1967. It was further stated that the court had no jurisdiction to entertain the suit in view of the provisions of the Inams Abolition Act.

(3.) The 6th defendant, through whom the said defendants claimed title, in his written statement, contended that he was the inamdarof the said land and that inspite of his objection to the alleged surrender of the rights, the proceedings were completed and the surrender was accepted. After the surrender of the right of the protected tenancy by the said Atchi Reddy, the plaintiffs had become his protected tenants and their possession has to be protected.