ISLAMIA ARABIC COLLEGE Vs. SHANTA BAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The defendants are the appellnts. The facts of the case present perspicacious point with absorbing exercise on the Court's jurisdictional issue in its chequered career tapping the doors of this Court thrice. One Balram Singh, the initial first plaintiff and Boddu Swamy, the second plaintiff, seek rectification of the entries in the Pahani Patriks showing them as protected tenants of the lands bearing Section Nos. 116 and 142 situated in Bahuloolkhanguda in Ranga Reddy District and to permanantly restrain the defendants or the Muslim Wakf Board claiming any interest in the aforestated lands or compensation payable for the lands acquired out of any portion of the said lands. Pending suit, Balram Singh died. His legal Representatives are Mrs. Shanta Bai and his daughter Miss Vijaya Rani. Pending this appeal, Boddu Swamy died and his legal representatives respondents 4 to 7 have been brought on record. The basis to seek those reliefs are as under:

(2.) During the year 1950-51 under the Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act (Act XXI of 1950), for short, "the Act", Balram Singh was declared to be the priotected tenant and a certificate to that effect was issued ; an entry in the final tenancy register of the year 1950 was made ; in the relevant entries in Khasra Pahani prepared in 1954-55, he was recorded as the protected tenant of the schedule lands. Boddu Swamy's lather was shown as his joint tenant. On his demise, Boddu Swamy continued to cultivate with him. Abbasi Begum is the Pattedar. They have been in possession from 1946 to 1956. The lands in S. No. 116 was notified under Section 4 (1) of the Land Acquision Act. When Balram Singh claimed compenastion it was disputed stating that he is not a protected tenant. Then Balram Singh made an application before the competent authority, the Tahsildar to give protected tenancy certificate or certified copy of the entries in the permanent Tenancy Register as it was burnt out in a fire accident in which his hut was burnt out. The reven ue receipts also were burnt our. He obtained Ex. A-2 certified copies of the entries in the Permanent Tenancy Register as protected tenant but the Patwari made wrong entries in the Pahani Patriks from 1956 omitting the name of Balram Singh to be the protected tenant and made Boddu Swamy to be the ordinary tenant. Then he discovered that his name was wrongfully omitted. Accordingly, the above reliefs are sought for in the suit.

(3.) The case of the respondents is that Abbasi Begum, the 2nd defendant is the owner of the property. She neither leased out the property to the plaintiffs nor were they in possession thereof. She bequeathed the property to the first appellant. In the proceedings under Section 38-E, the plaintiff claimed ownership certificate but on their objection, ownership certificate was refused to the plaintiffs under Ex. B-6. When the land was acquired, they claimed compensation and it was awarded. The plaintiff's claim was negatived. The lands were declared under Section 5 of the Wakfs Act, 1956, as wakf property and the Court cannot go into the mertis The Wakf Board is a necessary party. Government is the necessary party as rectification has to be made by the Government. The suit is bad for nonjoinder of the necessary parties and is liable to be dismissed on that ground. The trial Court fremed five issues. The trial Court dismissed the suit on September 30, 1970. On appeal, Venkatarama Sastry, J. held in CCCA No. 95 of 1971 that the Wakf Board is not a necessary party. Government is also not a necessary party. The jurisdiction of the Civil Court under Section 99 is not oustd to grant the relief. The declaration made under Section 5 (2) of the Wakfs Act is not a bar. The relief of permanent injunction can be granted incidentally. But whether the plaintiffs are entitled to the relief as the protected tenants or whether Section 102 of the Act ousts the jurisdiction, cannot be gone into under omnibus issue, namely, Accordingly, set aside the decree and remitted to the trail court to fiame appropriate issues and to try the suit. The trial Court framed four issues. Then, by judgment dated March 31, 19 77, the suit was decreed holding that the plaintiffs are the protected tenants ; the lands are agricultural lands ; the extracts of Tenancy Register amount to Tenancy certificate ; the suit is not barred for rectification of the revenue recor d s. The appellants filed C. C C. A. No. III of 1977. When it came up before Chennakesav Reddi, J. (as he then was) no arguments have been addressed impugning the findings on the four issues decided by the trail Court. But it was argued that the relevant issues have not been framed as indicated by Venkatarama Sastri, J., Chennakesav Reddi, J., did not go into the legality of the findings recorded by the trial Court on the four issues nor disturbed them but framed an additional issue, namely, whether the suit is not maint ainablc as the lands are exempted under Section 102 (d) & (e) of the Act and directed to consider the effect of the documents, Exs. B-1 & B-4 to B-6. Accordingly, remitted the matter to the trial Court. Thereby, the findings recorded by the trial Court on the four issues became final. On remand, the Court below