PENUMATCHA NEELAKANTESWARAJU Vs. JADDU MANGAMMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The question that has been referred to us by a Bench of this Court consisting of Satyanarayana Rao and Obul Reddi, JJ., is whether Section 56 of the Andhra pradesh (Andhra Area) Estates (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act (XXVI of 1948) (hereinafter referred to as "the Abolition Act") applies to a case where the dispute contemplated by that section arose before the notification. A preliminary objection was raised by the respondents advocate, Sri K. Narasimham, that this question does not arise because it is said that a Bench of this Court had earlier in Chigurupati Venkatasubbiah V. Ravi Punnayya, (1957) 2 Andh WR 204 held that a suit for possession and mesne profits is exclusively within the jurisdiction of a civil Court to decide. In our view, a perusal of the plaint would show that the question referred is incidental to the main question relating to the title of the suit properties.

(2.) The plaintiff had filed the suit on 25-4-1959 for recovery of the plaint schedule lands situate in kunchanapalli Mokhasa in Tadepalligudem in West Godavari District, which is admittedly an under tenure estate, claiming that she has occupancy rights therein and that the 2nd defendant even though he was a tenant for a short while, has no manner of right therein. The second defendant on the other hand, averred that he has occupancy rights in the suit lands as per the provisions of the Madras Estates Land Act (1 of 1908) and that no one else has got any right to dispute his rights. He further averred that the question whether the plaintiff has the right or not is to be determined by the Settlement Officer under Section 56 of the Abolition Act and that the Civil Court has no jurisdiction to decide that question.

(3.) The issues as framed required a determination as to whether the plaintiff and her predecessors-in-title own the Melvaram and the Kudivaram interests in the suit lands, and whether the 2nd defendant and his predecessor-in-interest acquired occupancy rights in them. There was also an issue as to whether the trial Court has no jurisdiction to try the suit.