KANDAKNDI PRABHAKAR RAO Vs. ALLAM ASHALU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The revision petitioners are the plaintiffs in O.S. No.52 of 1983 on the file of the District Munsif, Sultanabad who filed the suit for declaration that they are the owners of the suit schedule land and for permanent injunction against the respondents from interfering with their possession and enjoyment of the suit land. They also filed I.A.No.85 of 1983 in the said suit praying for interim injunction against the respondents from interfering in their possession and enjoyment of the suit land. The learned District Munsif granted an exparte interim injunction on 4-3-1983. The respondents-defendants contested the injunction petition alleging that they were the protected tenants of the said land and that they also have been given ownership certificates. It was further contended that no injunction can be granted against them and that the civil Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the suit in view of Sec. 99 of the Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Tenancy and Agricultural Lands, Act, 1950 (For short "the Act"). The learned District Munsif after hearing both sides, made the interim injunction absolute on March 28, 1985. The respondents carried the matter in appeal. The learned Second Additional District Judge, Karimnagar allowed the appeal and vacated the injunction on July 8, 1986. This revision is directed against the said order of the appellante Court.

(2.) Sri Narayanarao, the learned Counsel for the petitioners contends that in so far as the relief of injunction is concerned, the Civil Court alone has jurisdiction to grant the same, as there is no provision in the Act for grant of declaration or injunction, and if the respondents intend to take back the possession, they can resort to Sec. 32 of the Act but the Civil Courts have power to grant Injunction restraining even a protected tenant from interfering in the possession of the landholder the petitioners have established prima facie case and are in possession of the lands in question, as such the appelate Court erred in holding that the Civil Court has no jurisdiction and in vacating the injunction.

(3.) Whether the Civil Court has jurisdiction to entertain the suit and grant injunction against erstwhile protected tenant now holding ownership certificate and whether in the circumstances a case has been made out to grant temporary injunction, are entirely different questions. Sec.99 of the Act reads as follows: "99 Bar of Jurisdiction: (1) No Civil Court shall have Jurisdiction to settle, decide or deal with any question which is by or under this Act required to be settled decided or dealt with by the Tahsildar, Tribunal or Collector or by the Board of Revenue or Government. (2) No order of the Tahsildar, Tribunal or Collector or of the Board of Revenue or Government made in this Act, shall be questioned in any Civil Court or Criminal Court." From a perusal of this section, it is clear that the Civil Court has no jurisdiction to settle, decide or deal with any question which is required to be settled, decided or dealt with by the Tahsildar, Tribunal or Collector or Board of Revenue or Government, under the provisions of the Act and that any order passed by these authorities cannot be questioned in any Civil or Criminal Court. If the averments in the plaint do not raise any question referred to in Sec.99 of the Act, and the relief sought for is declaration and/or for permanent injunction, the jurisdiction of the Civil Court to entertain the suit cannot be said to be barred having regard to the wide language of Sec.9 of the Code of Civil Procedure (C.P.C.) A harmoneous reading of Sec.99 of the Tenancy Act and Section 9 of C.P.C. leaves no room for doubt that the Civil Court has jurisdiction to entertain the suit for declaration and permanent injunction at the threshold. I am supported in my view by the decision in Venka- tayya V. Kishtayya (1) A.I.R. 1956 Hyderabad 192.However after' the defendant enters this defence and brings to the notice of the Court that he holds the centrificate of protected tenancy or certificate of ownership granted under the act and that the questions which arise for determination in the suit are within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Revenue authorities under the Act, then first the Civil Court has to decide as to whether granting of relief prayed for requires adjudicating of any question which is by or under the Act required to be settled, decided or dealt with by the Tahsildar,Tribunal.Collector, Board of Revenue or the Government. If it records the answer in the affirmative, in view of the provisions of Sec.99 of the Act, it is precluded from adjudicating on those issues. The same view is expressed in Pedda Jangadu V. Venkatalakshmikant Rao (2) A.I.R 1954 Hyderabad 236.