GAJULA BALIRAM KUMBI Vs. SHANKER SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is directed against the judgment and order of the District Judge's Court, Adilabad, dated 12th April, 1957, in A.S. 3/4 of 1957, ordering remand of the suit No. 14/1 of 1956 for fresh disposal by the trial Court, viz., the Court of the District Munsif, Sirpur.

(2.) The Defendant is the appellant before me. The respondent, who is the plaintiff in the suit, brought the suit in question claiming a decree for mesne profits amounting to Rs. 600 for the years 1953 and 1954. The contention of the plaintiff in the plaint was that he had previously brought a suit claiming possession of the immoveable property bearing B. No. 44 in Nagampalli village of Adilabad district which suit was decreed, and that no appeal having been preferred therefrom, the said decree had become final and binding on the parties and that in pursuance of that decree and in execution thereof, he had obtained possession of the land bearing the survey number in question. He had not in that suit asked for a decree for mesne profits for the two years preceding that suit, namely, 1953 and 1954. Hence, the present suit. The appellant (defendant in the suit) pleaded inter alia that he is a protected tenant of the land represented by Section No. 44 but by mistake in the Tenancy Certificate issued by the Tahsildar, Section No. 45 was noted, instead of the correct figure Section No. 44, and that this defect had been certified subsequent to the previous decree and he had also obtained possession of the land with the aid of the Tahsildar under the Hyderabad Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act and that therefore the plaintiff has no cause of action to maintain the suit. On these pleadings, the learned District Munsif, who tried the suit, which is the subject matter of this appeal, framed two main issues, the first one raising the question whether the plaintiff had a cause of action against the Defendant to maintain the suit and the second one, raising the question whether the plaintiff was entitled to get mesne profits.

(3.) The learned District Munsif held that it was clear from the certified copies of the proceedings instituted by the defendant before the Tahsildar of Sirpur for rectifying the error in the tenancy certificate, that Tahsildar had passed orders in favour of the defendant admitting the tenancy and changing the survey number from 45 to 44 and also putting him in possession of the land from which he had been evicted by reason of the process of the Civil Court in execution of the previous decree. The learned District Munsif further held that the Tahsildar had admitted the defendant's claim and ordered the necessary correction in the tenancy certificate and also placed the defendant in possession of the land. He held further that the records produced before him showed that the defendant had been cultivating the land from a long time and that on account of the incorrect entry in the tenancy certificate the Court passed a decree against him and consequently, he was dispossessed. He further held that it was not proper to deny the rights of any person on account of the wrong entries in public records and that therefore the defendant could not be considered to have been in wrongful possession of Section No. 44 and hence no question of mesne profits would arise. He further held that under Section 99 of the Hyderabad Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, the Civil Court's jurisdiction is barred. Consequently, he held that the plaintiff had no cause of action against the defendant and that he is not entitled to the mesne profits. In the view he took on the first issue in the case, he dismissed the suit without going into the second issue, namely, the question of the quantum of mesne profits, as apparently, he felt that it was unnecessary to consider that issue in view of the finding on the first issue.