KANDULA SATYANARAYANA Vs. PATVATHESWARASWAMI TEMPLE PAMIDINMKKALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Second Appeal has been referred to a Bench by Vimadaial. J. Sole defendant is the appellant. For the sake of facility we shall refer to the parties with reference to their ranking in the suit.

(2.) The Plaintiff-temple filed a suit for recovery of possession and profits, alleging that the defendant is its lessee in respect of both the suit items. Item 1 is of an extent of Ac. 14. 13 cents, while item 2 is Ac. l.08cents, both situated in Pamidimukkala village. According to the plaintiff the defendant had taken the said land on lease on 19-5-1952, under Ex. A-4, for a period of five years, agreeing to pay 265 bags of paddy per annum by way of rent.The rent agreed conies to 17 bags per Acre. In 1957, the tenant filed a petition under the Andhra Tenancy Act, A.T.P.No. 241/1957, for fixation of fair rent. The rent was substantially reduced by the Tahsildar, Against the said order, the temple filed an appeal before the R D.O., which was dismissed. Even after the expiry of the term of the said lease, the defendant continued in possession of the said lands. The Andhra Pradesh Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions & Endowments Act, 1966 (hereinafter referred to as "the 1966 Act") came into force on and with effect from 26-1-1967. After the said Act came into force, the Assistant Commissioner sent a Memo to the Executive Officer of the plaintiff temple to take possession of the said lands and to lease them out by public auction. It was further directed that if the lessee refused to deliver possession, appropriate action may be taken (vide Ex. A-6). In pursuance to the above memo the Executive officer sent registered notice (Ex. A-7) dated 6-5-1967, to the defendant calling upon him to deliver possession of the said lands on the ground that the period of lease having expired, he becomes an "encroacher" within the meaning of Section 75 of the said Act. To this notice the defendant sent a reply (Ex. A-8), dated 10-5-1967 contending that since the suit item-1 is an Inam land situated in an Inam village held by an institution, he has acquired permanent occupancy rights under Sec. 8 of the Andhra Inams Abolition Act, 1956. With respect to item 2, the defendant contended that he has a right to continue in possession by virtue of the provisions contained in Andhra Tenancy Act. There was further exchange of notices in which both the parties reiterated their respective stands. Thereupon the Executive Officer of the temple requested the Assistant Commissioner to take proceedings under Sec. 75 of the 1966 Act, but the authorities refused to take any action there under and, on the contrary, directed the Executive Officer of the temple to institute a civil suit. Accordingly, the present suit was instituted on 29-10-1968

(3.) According to the plaintiff, the defendant is not entitled to permanent occupancy rights in item lt for the reason that on 7-1-1948 item 1 was leased out to and cultivated by two other persons, namely G. Sub- bayya and N. Kondandaramayya. With respect to item 2, it was alleged that the Andhra Tenancy Act does not come to the rescue of the defendant and that the 1966 Act alone governs the rights of the parties in respect of the said lands. The plaintiff valued the suit u/s. 40(2) of the A.P. Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, on the ground that it is a suit between landlord and tenant.