KOTVALA APPANNA Vs. MUMMINA MULAYYA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appeal and the revision petitions raised common questions of law. They can therefore be disposed of by one common judgment. They arise in the following circumstances : The lands in respect of which rents are claimed in the suits and regarding which partition is sought in the two I.As. referred to below are Carpenter service inam lands situated in S. Nos. 26, 69, 94 and 125 of Etikoppaka Village which was an Estate within the meaning of the Madras Estates Land Act as amended in 1936. Dimili Bangaraiah and Dimili Appalaraju and others were the shareholders in the said inam lands. They were leasing out the same to the tenants. One Tirupataiah filed O.S. No. 123 of 1953 against Dimili Bangaraiah and Dimili Appalaraju and obtained a money decree. In execution of that decree the undivided 2/10 share of the judgment-debtors in the service inam lands was brought to sale. Mummina Mulayya purchased the undivided 2/10 share in the court auction and obtained symbolic delivery on 22nd December, 1956. The said purchaser thereafter filed O.S. No. 160 of 1958 for partition of the inam lands and separate possession of the two shares of the judgment-debtors which he had purchased in Court auction.

(2.) Likewise Yellapu Tirupataiah filed another suit O.S. No. 124 of 1955 against Dimili Bangaraiah and others and obtained a money decree. In execution of that decree the undivided 1/10 share of the judgment-debtors in the inam lands was brought to sale. The decree-holder himself purchased the undivided 1/10 share of the judgment-debtor after obtaining necessary permission from the Court. He took symbolical delivery of the same on 30th October, 1955. Subsequently he filed O.S. No. 159 of 1958 for partition of the lands into 10 equal shares and for separate possession of one such share. In both the abovesaid suits, a preliminary decree was passed. It was, however, stated that the plaintiff would not be entitled to possession of the property in view of the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh (Andhra Area) Inams (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1956, hereinafter called the Act. The decreeholders in the partition suits filed I.As. Nos. 263 and 264 of 1960 for passing a final decree and for the appointment of a Commissioner. As stated earlier, the suits were for the rent for service inam lands filed by the purchasers. While S.C. Nos. 346, 347, 348 and 349 of 1960 and I.A. No. 263 of 1960 were filed by Tirupataiah, I.A. No. 264 of 1960, O.S. No. 165 of 1960 and S.C. No. 345 of 1960 were filed by M. Mulayya. The I.As. and the rent suits were resisted by the tenants, who are the appellants before me, mainly on the ground that they had 2/3 share in the inam lands by virtue of the provisions of the Act. The partition in the two I.As. could not be directed unless their 2/3 share was physically separated. It was also contended by them that they were not liable to pay the rents since they had become the owners of 2/3 share of the inam lands on the date when the Act was brought into force.

(3.) The learned District Munsiff, Yallamanchilli, rejected the contention of the tenants-appellants and passed decrees in the rent suits and passed an order in the above said I.As. for the appointment of a Commissioner for the purpose of partitioning the properties. Aggrieved by that decision, the tenants have come in revision. They filed, however, an appeal before the District Judge, Visakhapatnam A.S. No. 199 of 1963. In view of the common questions involved in the said appeal and the revisions filed before this Court, A.S. No. 199 of 1963 was directed to be transferred to this Court so that it can also be heard along with the revision petitions. The principal contention in the appeal and the revisions of Mr. Venkatapathi Raju, the learned Counsel for the appellant is that the. tenants have become owners of 2/3 share in the inam lands on the date when the Act came into, force. They cannot therefore be held liable for the rent since there is no relationship of landlord and tenant between them existing after the Act came into force. It was further contended that the partition of the inam lands between the shareholders cannot be ordered unless 2/3 share of the tenants in separated. As that share belongs to the tenants, it cannot be the subject-matter of partition between the shareholders. It was, however, contended on behalf of the respondents by Mr. Kothanda Ramaiah, their learned Counsel, that since the tenants have not filed any application for the grant of pattas and since no pattas have been granted in their name, they have not become the owners of 2/3 share of the lands, that the relationship of landlord and tenant continues and that therefore the tenants are liable to pay the rent till such date they got the pattas granted in their names. In order to appreciate these rival contentions, it is necessary to remember that admittedly these inam lands are situated in an inam village and that they are not held by an institution. That was the result of an enquiry held under section 3 of the Act. The only question which falls for determination, is whether the Act confers title on the tenants to the extent of 2/3 shares on the date of the Act or whether the title would be conferred on the tenants only when pattas are granted to them under section 7 of the Act. In order to find out the solution to this problem, it is necessary to understand the scheme of the Act and to read the provisions carefully. It appears from the statement of objects and reasons that in December, 1955, the Government introduced the Madras Estates Land (Andhra Amendment) Bill, 1955, for the amendment of section 3 (2)(d) of the Madras Estates Land Act, 1908 with the object of enlarging the definition of estate' under that Act in order to cover certain marginal inams such as inam hamlets and inam Khandrigas. The select committee to which the Bill was referred had made certain recommendations in regard to the provisions of the Bill. The Government after considering the recommendations decided that the scope of the said amendment Bill be restricted to inam Khandrigas and inam hamlets in inam villages and decided to undertake separate legislation which a view to converting other inams in inam villages as well as all inams in ryotwari and Zamindari villages into ryotwari tenure.