MUSUNURU VENKAYYA Vs. POTLAPALLI VENKATARAMARAO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) S.C.C.M.Ps. Nos. 4205 to 4221 of 1954.-These are applications for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of India against the judgment of the Madras High Court delivered on 18th December, 1953, in C.R.Ps. Nos. 1927 to 1943 of 1949. The said revisions arise out of 17 suits filed in the District Munsif's Court, Bezwada, by the respondents, who are proprietors of the village called Bommaluru in the Krishna District against the tenants the petitioners, for posession of holdings in the village, for an injunction restraining them from removing the paddy heaps standing in the suit land and for effecting division of the paddy heaps. In ten of the suits, they also asked for recovery of ceases from the tenants. The 1st defendant was a co-sharer with the plaintiffs and the other defendants are tenants. The tenants pleaded inter aha that the village was an estate within the meanin g of the Madras Estates Land Act and that they had occupancy rights therein. This contention was countered by the plaintiff stating that the decision of the Revenue Divisional Officer in M.P. No. 2 of 1938 holding that the village was not an estate was res judicata between the parties and, therefore, the plea that the village was an estate was not open to the tenants. To defeat this plea, the tenants pleaded that in O.S. No. 318 of 1943 and other suits, it was held that the finding in M.P. No. 2 of 1938 to the effect that the village was not an estate was not res judicata and that this would, in its turn, operate as res judicata between the parties with the result that the petitioners would be entitled to prove in the present suits that the village was an estate.

(2.) On the above pleadings, the following issues were framed in one batch of suits. 1. Whether the suit land is an estate and, if so, whether this Court has jurisdiction to try the suit ? 2. Whether the decision in O.S. No. 318 of 1943 and other suits of that batch opeiates as res judicata on the above issue ? 3.Whether the decision in M.P. No. 2 of 1938 on the file of the Revenue Divisional Officer, Nuzvid, operates as res judicata with regard to issue I. 4. Whether the suit is premature as far as cesses are concerned ? 5. To what relief are the plaintiffs entitled ?

(3.) The said issues are common to O.S. Nos. 110, 112, 114, 116, 118, 120, and 122 of 1946. The following issues were settled in O.S. Nos. 452, 454, 458, 460, 462, 464, 468 and 470 of 1946 : 1. Whether the defendants have occupancy rights ? 2. Whether this Court has no jurisdiction ? 3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a charge ? 4.Whether the plaintiff is entitled to interest ? 5. Whether the suit is barred by res judicata. Additional issue framed on 11th April, 1947. Whether the decision in M.P. No. 2 of 1938 on the file of the Revenue Divisional Officer, Nuzvid, operates as res judicata, with regard to issue I.