RAMAIAH Vs. GOVINDU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The defendants having lost in both the courts below have come in Second Appeal. The essential facts of the case in order to understand the arguments advanced before me may briefly be stated : The suit property is an unenfranchised barbers' service inam land measuring ac. 1-57 cents comprised in Survey No. 154 situated in Kattubolu village. It was alleged that Polayya who was the head of the family leased out the suit land to the first defendant for the year 1940-41 on sharing system. The first defendant continued as a tenant holding over and was paying agreed share till 1953-54. After the death of Polayya, Plaintiffs 1 and 2 became the owners of the suit property along with Mangamma, the wife of Polayya. The first defendant continued as a tenant holding over even after the death of Polayya. On 29-3-1957 plaintiffs 1 and 2 and the said Mangamma sold the land to the third Plaintiff. The 1st defendant was duly informed of the sale. The first defendent, however, did not respond. He instituted O. S. 90/57 for the issue of a permanent injunction restraining the third plaintiff from interfering with his possession. The suit was decreed. This suit therefore, WAS laid for declaration of title, for recovery of possession and for the profits, past as well as future.

(2.) The first defendant in his written statement denied that he was the tenant and claimed himself to be the service holder enjoying the inam. The first defendant thereafter died and defendants 2 to 4 were brought on record. They filed a written statement adopting the written statement already filed. They further raised a ground that even on the plaintiffs' showing, the first defendant was a tenant and that the Civil Court, therefore, cannot have any jurisdiction to direct the eviction of the defendants. The trial court after framing the proper issues and recording the evidence adduced by the parties, decreed the plaintiffs' suit. Dissatisfied with that judgment, defendants carried the matter in appeal. The appellate ceurt agreeing with the conclusions of the trial court dismissed the appeal. It is that judgement of the learned District Judge given on 27th November, 1981, that is the subject matter of this Second Appeal. The only contention advanced before me by Mr. C. V. Dikshitulu, the learned counsel for the appellants is that when the planuifi'; concoded that the first defendant was a tenant, holding over on the date when the suit was filed the only remedy which the plaintiffs had was to approach the tenancy court under Section 11 of the Andhra Tenancy Act, 1956 (hereinafter called the Act) and not by way of suit and that the Civil Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the present suit.

(3.) The jurisdiction with reference to the subject matter of a claim depends upon the averments made in the plaint and nor upon those which may ultimately be found to be true. Mere allegations made by defendant in his written statement are not enough to decide the forum of a suit. It is the plaint to which we must look at to find out the real nature of the suit. The plaint must be read as a whole and while doing so, the court must look at the substance of the plaint and not its external form only. Whether a particular suit is cognizable by a Civil Court or by the tenancy coutt, it is the allegations made in the plaint which must decide that question and not the pleas raised by the defendant in his written statement. Care should always be taken not to be swayed by irrelelevant considerations. It is true that plaintiff cannot give to a Civil court jurisdiction by making false allegations in the plaint Nevertheless, jurisdiction of a court does not depend upon the defendant's case which is set up after the suit is instituted but upon the state of affairs which existed before the suit was. institured. It may be that the allegations made in the plaint after the trial of the case are found to be untrue. But, in that case, the suit will be dismissed not because the court has no jurisdiction but because the allegations on which the suit was based are found to be unfounded.