MOHAMMAD BURHAN Vs. SHIVLING RAO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Defendant No. 1 is the appellant. Respondent No. 1 laid the suit for a declaration that he is the owner of Ac. 10-06 guntas of land in Survey No. 48 situated at Kharbala village of Mudhole Taluk in Adilabad District. The trial court granted the decree as against which the appeal has been filed. The case of the respondent-plaintiff is that he purchased the plaint schedule properties under Ex. A-1 sale-deed, dated May 17, 1967 from the 2nd defendant and obtained validation certificate under Section 50-B of the Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1950 for short, "the Act" and under Ex. A-3, dated April 22, 1970 another extent of Ac. 4-00 and under Ex. A-4, dated May 3, 1974 a further extent of Ac. 2-06 cents and thus, he acquired valid title to the property. The protected tenancy certificate issued under Section 38-E of the Act is not binding on him. The trial court granted the decree. The question at issue is whether the civil court has got jurisdiction to give a declaration of title in respect of the lands covered tinder the provisions of the Act. The matter is no longer res integra. It is now an admitted fact that the appellant is a protected tenant and in the proceedings issued by the Revenue Divisional Officer in No. B8/5157/74, dated March, 19, 1975 he was granted ownership certificate under Section 38-E, and the respondent carried the matter in appeal and further revision and that order was confirmed by this Court in C.R.P. 1206/76 by Ramachandra Rao, J. (as he then was) by judgment, dated June 8, 1977. Subsequently, the respondents filed W.P. No. 1978/77 assailing the legality thereof. This Court by judgment, dated August 1, 1977 held that since the disputed question of title and possession are raised, the appropriate remedy is civil suit. Pursuant thereto, the civil suit has been filed. The question at issue is whether the civil court has got jurisdiction to grant declaration of title based on the sales effected by the land owner- second defendant to the first respondent-plaintiff. The entire gamut or operation of the protected tenancy certificate has been governed by the provisions of the Act. Against that, there is a right of appeal to Joint Collector and a further revision to this Court. The respondent has availed of those remedies and this Court in C.R.P. 1206/76 by way of judgment, dated June,8 1977 dismissed the C.R.P. Therefore even the writ itself is not maintainable. However this Court has held that the matter can be adjudicated in a civil suit. As seen, the jurisdiction of the civil court has been expressly ousted under the Act, therefore the Civil Court cannot entertain any suit and give declaration of title. Accordingly, the declaration granted by the Civil Court is without jurisdiction. Whether the Civil Court has jurisdiction or not, was considered by this Court in Choudari Rama vs. Qureshi Beel and held that the Civil Court has no jurisdiction to grant a decree for possession. This was also the view consistently right from Sharfuddin vs. Sama Yalluga. In view of the catena of decisions, the declaration granted by the Civil Court is clearly without jurisdiction. Accordingly, the Appeal allowed, and ths suit is dismissed but in the circumstances, without costs. It is represented by Sri Amanullah Baig, learned counsel for the appellant that pursuant to the interim direction, the appellant has deposited certain amounts in the Court below. He is at liberty to withdraw the same. This appeal having been set down "for being mentioned" pursuant to the letter filed by the counsel for the Respondent, dated 18-7-1987 and upon perusing the said letter and the judgment of the High Court, dated 16-7-1987 and upon heaing the arguments of Mr. Mirza Imanullah Baig, Advocate for the appellants and of Mr. M.S.K. Sastry, Advocate for the Respondents, the court delivered the following : A.S. No. 594 of 1980

(2.) The respondents-plaintiffs laid the suit and it was declared that respondent No. 1 is the pattedar of the lands bearing S. No. 48 admeasuring Ac. 10-06 guntas and decree for possession thereof after ejecting the appellants and for mesne profits at Rs. 4,400/- was granted as against which, this appeal arises.

(3.) The second defendant is the pattedar of the plaint schedule lands bearing No. 48 of an extent of Ac. 18-06 guntas situated in Kharbala village of Mudhole taluk, Adilabad district. The first respondent purchased Ac. 4-00 of the said survey Number under Ex. A-l, dated May 17, 1967 and obtained validation certificate under Ex. A-2 ;' another Ac. 4-00 under Ex. A-3, dt. April 22, 1970 and Ac. 2-06 guntas under Ex. A-4, dt. May, 3 1974. Thereby he has acquired title to the said land. It is his case that though the appellant was a protected tenant in the year 1950-51 but in 1952, he surrendered his possession in favour of the father of the second defendant; he was inducted into possession pursuant to Exs. A-l, A-3 and A-4 sales and he was continuing as such. To be on safe side, he also filed an application under Ex. A-7, dated September 27, 1967 whreat the appellant has given a statement under Ex. A-8 admitting the surrender and the same has been recorded by the Tahsildar. But without notice to him, the appellant obtained ownership certificate under Section 38-E of the Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act (21 of 1950) for short, "the Act" under Ex. A-27, dated March 19, 1975 pursuant to which he was put in possession. He filed an appeal but was entailed with dismissal. The revision, C.R.P. 1206/76 filed in this Court was also dismissed under Ex. A-28, dated June 8, 1977. Subsequently, he and his vendor filed W.P. No. 1978 of 1977 and it was dismissed by this Court on August 1, 1977 under Ex. A-29, with liberty to file a regular suit. Thus the suit came to be filed for the above reliefs.