SHARFUDDIN Vs. SAMA YELLUGA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant filed a suit in the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Medak, on the basis of his title for recovery of the plaint schedule property in the possession of the defendants who are eight in number. The defendants pleaded that they were protected tenants, that the Tahsil Office certificates in their favour and that, therefore, the Civil Court had no jurisdiction to entertain the suit.

(2.) Both the Courts found that the defendants were protected tenants, that the certificates issued by the Tahsil office were conclusive evidence of that fact and that section 99 of the Hyderabad Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1950, was a bar to the maintainability of the suit. On those findings, the first Court dismissed the suit. On appeal, the learned Judge confirmed it. Hence, the second Appeal.

(3.) Learned counsel for the appellant contended that the judgment of the Court below was based upon a mistaken assumption that all the defendants had certificates in their favour. He would say that there was no certificate in favour of defendants, 1, 4, 7 and 8. But in the Court below, it does not appear that any attempt was made to distinguish the case of the said four defendants from others. All parties concerned proceeded on the assumption that the said certificates were issued in favour of all the defendants. This appeal, cannot satisfactorily and finally be disposed of without obtaining a definite finding on the question, namely, whether all the defendants obtained certificates from the Tahsil Office under the Hyderabad Tenancy and Agriculture Lands Act, 1950 and if not which of them had obtained such certificates. The District Judges is, therefore, directed to submit a finding on the above question within a month from the date of the receipt of the records in the lower Court. One work thereafter for objections.