PUKRAJ Vs. KISHANLAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) O.S. No. 59 of 1968 on the file of the Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, out of which this Civil Revision Petition arises was filed for partition of Plaint B Schedule properties claiming 1/6th share therein and also claiming 1/6th share in the compensation amount with regard to certain lands which were acquired by the Government and also for a declaration that the registration of some of the suit lands as endowed properties in the Register of Endowments by defendant 13, the Director of Endowments, Government of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad, is illegal, void and without jurisdiction. The plaintiff pleaded that late Raja Raghunatharam was the common ancestor of the plaintiffs and defendants 1 to 11. He owned considerable properties movable and immovable including plaint B Schedule lands comprised of crown grants, Atiyat, etc. After his death the said crown grants were re-granted to his heirs and ultimately the succession was sanctioned by the competent authority in favour of the plaintiff, defendants 1, 2, 10 and 11 and Raja Tirambaklal, the predecessor-in-interest of defendants 3 to 9. There are thus said to be three branches namely, plaintiff and defendant 11 together entitled to 1/3rd share; defendant 10 is entitled to 1/3rd share and the remaining I/3rd share is said to be belonging to defendants 1 and 2 and 3 to 9 who are the heirs of Raja Tirambaklal, who died in the year 1963. It was further pleaded that after the abolition of the Jagirs, the parties are receiving their respective shares in the commutation amounts as regards the plaint B Schedule properties. According to the plaintiffs, the non-Atiyat properties of the family were the subject matter of O.S. No. 2/ 1343-F, a partition suit, and as per the decree in the said suit those properties were partitioned among the members of the family. Finally, the decree was confirmed by the Supreme Court. The plaintiff would have it (sic) that only Atiyat properties, the subject matter of the suit, were not divided and hence the suit for partition.

(2.) The defendants resisted the plaintiffs suit and contended inter alia that the claim of the plaintiff that the Civil Court has jurisdiction is not correct. In para 7 of the written statement filed by defendants 1 to 4, it was contended that the Hyderabad Enfranchised Inams Act is no longer in force after the coming into force of the Inams Abolition Act and that the Atiyat and Inam properties are not liable to be partitioned. It was further contended that the Civil Court has no jurisdiction in respect of the suit properties.

(3.) Thus, there is no specific denial on the part of the defendants that the plaint B Schedule lands are not Inam lands. What all they contended in para 7 of the written statement was the Atiyat and Inam properties, which are the subject matter of the suit, are not liable to be partitioned. The grievance of the defendants, as expressed in para 8 of their written statement is that the plaintiff has not described the nature of the suit properties and that he has not referred to the properties, in respect of which succession was granted by the Atiyat authorities. In para 13 of the written statement, the defendants 1 to 4 have traced out the nature of the suit properties and claimed them to be the temple properties. Their defence in para 13 runs as follows : "The real facts which the plaintiff fully knows but purposely conceals are that the properties shown in S. Nos. 1 to 5 and 8 in Schedule 'B' attached to the plaint are the properties held by and for the benefit of the Shri Krishna Murli Manohar Swamy and other allied temples at Attapur - Bahadurpura in taluka West, Hyderabad district. They are all temple properties. No one is entitled to any share in it. They are possessed and managed by defendant 3 exclusively as 'Mutawalli' of the said temples after his father's death. So far as the lands shown in S. Nos. 6 and 7 of the said Schedule 'B' are concerned, it is submitted that late Raja Trimbaklal was the Pattadar and in exclusive possession of the same. Even otherwise, they have vested in the State being Inam lands by virtue of the provisions of the Hyderabad Abolition of lnams Act. No one has a share in these properties as well." The defence of the defendants is further elaborated in para 14 of the written statement, which reads as under : "According to the plaint allegations the suit lands are Inam and Inam lands and the plaintiff and defendants 1 to 11 are the joint Inamdars in possession of the same. These defendants do not admit it as already stated. However, under the Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Abolition of Inams Act 1967 which came into force in October, 1967, the Tahsildar alone is the competent authority to decide whether the suit lands are Inam lands and whether they are held by the temple or Inamdar or Khabiz-e-Khadim or other person. Further the Tahsildar is competent to grant Ryotwari pattas. The Act overrides other laws, contracts and any decree or order of a Court. etc. This Honourable Court, therefore, has no jurisdiction to try this suit. The suit is, therefore, liable to be dismissed."