SANGAMESHWARA SWAMY TEMPLE Vs. PRL DISTRICT MUNSIF

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Commonality of questions of law and similarity of facts incline me to dispose of these eight revisions under Article 227 of the Constitution of India by this common judgment.

(2.) It is no longer in dispute before me that the 1st petitioner-temple is the owner of agricultural lands in question and the remaining petitioners have been inducted as lessees (for short 'second lessees') in respect of different extents of agricultural lands out of the agricultural lands in question in pursuance of the auction held by the 1st petitioner-temple on 12-3-1992 while the 1st respondent is the Principal District Munsif, the second respondent is the Tenancy Appellate Tribunal-cum-Principal District Judge and the remaining respondents claim themselves to be the lessees (for short 'first lessees') in respect of the same extents of agricultural lands out of the agricultural lands in question for many years from before 12-3-1992, that is to say, the date on which the leasehold rights in those lands had been sold by auction. The first lessees filed a suit in O.S. No.40/92 on the file of the Principal District Munsif, Tenali, for permanent injunction along with an application for temporary injunction which was granted to them subject to payment of deposit of Makta for the year 1991-92 before the end of the month of July, 1992, which they paid. The 1st petitioner-temple challenged the order in CMA No.18/92 and the order of temporary injunction was reversed. The first lessees unsuccessfully preferred a revision petition before the High Court, bearing No.3911 /92. The suit was dismissed on the ground that the Civil Court has no jurisdiction to try the dispute between the landlord and the tenants. In the meantime, the second lessees filed separate petitions be/ore the Principal District Munsif, Tenali, under Section 16 of the Andhra Pradesh (Andhra Area) Tenancy Act of 1956 against the 1st petitioner-temple and the first lessees for a declaration that they are sub-lessees of the first lessees and for permanent injunction restraining the first petitioner as also the first lessees from disturbing their possession. The first lessees also filed separate petitions for permanent injunction against the petitioner-temple and the second lessees under Section 16 of the Andhra Pradesh (Andhra Area) Tenancy Act of 1956 alleging that they are the cultivating tenants of the agricultural lands in question and the first petitioner-temple as also the second lessees are trying to disturb their possession on the ground that the 1st petitioner-temple had inducted the second lessees as lessees because they were the successful bidders in the auction held on 12-3-1992 to different extents of lands out of the agricultural lands in question. They also filed separate applications for temporary injunctions against the second lessees.

(3.) The Principal District Munsif granted temporary injunction to all the first lessees in different ATCs. Nos.14/93 to 21/93 by a common order dated 11-2-1994 and dismissed the applications for temporary injunction filed by the second lessees in different ATCs. Nos.10/92 to 19/92 through a common order on 4-8-1992, The petitioner-temple and the second lessees preferred ATAs. Nos.10/94 to 17/94 against the order of temporary injunction dated 11-2-1994 before the Tenancy Appellate Tribunal and the second lessees preferred ATAs Nos.48/92 to 57/92 against the rejection of their applications for temporary injunctions against the petitioner-temple and the first lessees. All the appeals have been rejected by the Tenancy Appellate Tribunal-cum- Principal District Judge, Guntur, by a common order dated 29-1-1996.