VANKATESWARULU Vs. LAKSHMAMMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an application for the stay of the hearing of appeal No. 619 of 1951 under the Andhra Inam Tenants Protection Act (XIV of 1954). The petitioner, who was the 1st defendant in the suit out of which this appeal arises, claimed to be a tenant of the land in dispute, which is stated to be about 4 acres in extent, while the plaintiff sued for the eviction of the petitioner and other members of his family on the ground that he was a trespasser who had got into the lands when she was herself in personal cultivation thereof. The suit was decreed and the 1st defendant (petitioner) has appealed to this Court.

(2.) The first issue in the suit was: " Whether the suit village is an estate within the meaning of the Estates Land Act? " and this was followed by an issue as to " whether the 1st defendant has acquired occupancy right in the suit land? " Under the first issue the lower Court found that " The second requirement of Sec. 3 (2) (d) not having been satisfied in the case," the property was not part of an ' estate' as defined in that section read with the Explanation and therefore the 1st defendant, though admitted as a tenant in the suit land, would not acquire occupancy rights. The learned Subordinate Judge apparently meant that even assuming that the 1st defendant had been let into the land as a tenant, he would not have acquired statutory rights of occupancy for the reason that the suit lands did not form part of an estate. He, however. went into a consideration of the second issue, and in the result, he held that the 1st defendant had not succeeded in showing that he was let into occupation of the land as a tenant and that he had failed to discharge the burden of establishing the tenancy which he had set up. But it may be noted that there was an earlier suit between the parties, O. S. No. 34 of 1948 on the file of the District Munsif's Court, Tenali which was a suit instituted by the present plaintiff for a permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with her possession. The Court, however, dismissed the suit holding that the 1st defendant was a tenant holding over and that the suit was therefore not maintainable. One of the points to be decided in the appeal is whether this finding is right.

(3.) It is argued by Mr. Ramanarsu that having regard to the finding of the lower Court in the present suit that the defendant has not established his tenancy, the Inam Tenants Protection Act cannot apply. This contention cannot be accepted in view of the fact that a Bench of this High Court consisting of the learned Chief Justice and my learned brother held in C.M.P. No. 2014 of 1955 that the Act applies even to a person merely claiming to be a tenant. In expressing this view the learned Judges adopted the ruling of my learned brother in Karri Venkatareddi v. Kilambi Ammanna Alias Sithamma. With great respect to the learned Judges, I think their view is right. It seems to me impossible to hold that merely because a dispute is raised in a suit as to whether party is or is not a tenant when he himself claims to be one, he is not entitled to the benefits of the Inam Tenants Protection Act. Adopting the reasoning of the Privy Council in Karnani Industrial Bank Ltd. v. Satya Niranjan Shaw (though the case is not entirely on all fours with the present one), I think that the whole purpose of the Act would be defeated if such a contention were to be accepted. I think, therefore, that it must be held that the Act applies to the present facts and that, the hearing of this appeal should be stayed under the Inam Tenants Protection Act.