SYED HASSAN AND OTHERS Vs. SANDAIAH AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These C.M. As. 72/3 and 73/3 of 1956 are directed against the orders of remand made by the District Judge, Hyderabad District, under Order 41, rule 23, Civil Procedure Code.

(2.) Shortly stated, the facts are these. The suit schedule lands are claimed to have been under cultivation of the plaintiff and their ancestors for the past 100 years from the time of the defendants' forefather with their permission as the landholders or pattadars. Plaintiffs contend that they are shikmidars within the meaning of section 67 of the Hyderabad Land Revenue Act as they themselves are in possession as Asami Shikmi for a period of more than 12 years without any stipulation as to be period of lease. With these allegations they brought their suit for declaration of their legal status as Shikmidars against the defendants in their representative capacity. Before they came to the Civil Court, they had moved the revenue authorities by an application to the Tahsildar. The Tahsildar directed that they may approach the Commission which was the appropriate authority to deal with the question of protected tenancy in case the plaintiffs claimed such rights. It seems he also opined that the plaintiffs were not entitled to any right under section 67 of the Hyderabad Land Revenue Act for their pleadings were in conflict with their sworn testimony. The plaintiffs did not approach the Commission as directed. Instead, they resorted to the Civil remedy having regard to the nature of the claim.

(3.) The defendants - appellants denied the rights of the plaintiffs and inter alia took a plea of jurisdiction claiming that section 99 of the Hyderabad Tenancy and Agriculture trial Court which as a result rejected the plaint. The lower appellate Court case for trial and its disposal on merits.