MOHAMMAD MEERAN MOHIUDDIN Vs. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiff is the appellant. The suit was laid for possession and profits. The plaintiff's case is that the suit property was taken over by the first defendant, State of A.P., under the supervision of court of wards (when the plaintiff was a minor), which was managing the property of an extent of Ac. 320.00 situated at Nagaram village, Narasampet Tq., Warangal District ; that the first defendant failed to render account and inducted defendants 2 to 27 in possession of the property, and granted them rights under the A.P. (T.A.) Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1950. It is also alleged that defendants 2 to 27 who were inducted into possession cannot have any rights under the Act in view of Section 102 of the said Act. Hence the suit.

(2.) The first defendant contended that the rents were collected from defendants 2 to 27 as and when they accrued and paid to the plaintiff, and that after looking into the accounts, if any amount is due, they are willing to pay the same. So far as the relief of possession is concerned, it was contended that the same cannot be granted as defendants 2 to 27 were inducted into possession prior to the taking over of the management of the property by the first defendant and hence the suit is liable to be dismissed. The other defendants also contested the suit on the same line stating that they were tenants prior to the taking over of the management by the first defendant-Government, and that they obtained necessary tenancy certificates and ownership certificates under Section 38-E of the Tenancy Act, which have become final, and hence the relief of possession sought against them is unsustainable.

(3.) The lower court framed the necessary issues as found in paragraph 5, and held on material issues that defendants 2 to 27 were inducted into possession by the ancestors of the plaintiff before the Government took over the management under the provisions of the Court of Wards Act, and that when the proceedings under the Tenancy Act were initiated by defendants 2 to 27 for obtaining the tenancy certificates and ownership certificates, the plaintiff did not question the same. In view of the fact that the first defendant is always willing to render the account in respect of the amounts collected by it, the suit is unnecessary. The suit was accordingly dismissed. Against the said judgment and decree the present appeal is filed.