- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
Nallipattu Ramakrishna Reddy And Another v. Kasala Balaiah And Another
Structured Summary of the Opinion
Factual and Procedural Background
This appeal was preferred by defendants 1 and 16 against the judgment and decree in O.S. No. 50/78 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Gudur, dated 8-3-1979. The suit (O.S. No. 50/78) and O.S. No. 10/78 were disposed of together by a common judgment. Four plaintiffs in O.S. No. 50/78 appear as defendants 5 to 60 in O.S. No. 10/78; defendants in one suit correspond to different parties in the other suit. The appellants in this appeal did not appeal the judgment in O.S. No. 10/78 and appealed only against the judgment in O.S. No. 50/78.
In O.S. No. 50/78 the plaintiffs sought a declaration of title to the plaint schedule land, delivery of possession, mesne profits from the date of suit until delivery of possession, and costs. The subject land comprised two items: 0.08 acres and 2.07 acres (total plaint schedule described as 2.15 cents / ac. 2-15 cents in one part of the record) out of a total referenced extent of 7.68 acres in Survey No. 54, Patta No. 30, situated in Kuchiwada village, Gudur taluk, Nellore district. The suit was originally filed on 1-8-1974 and was valued for jurisdictional purposes; it was subsequently transferred to the Sub-Court, Gudur.
Plaintiffs alleged family possession from time immemorial and reliance on a rough patta granted before 1958 in the name of Kasala Subrahmanyam Chetty (their ancestor), later shown in certified copy Ex. B.9, and subsequent entries in the No. 10(1) account (Exs. B.94 and B.95). Plaintiffs alleged encroachment by the 1st defendant (0.08 acres) and by others (2.07 acres). Plaintiffs also recounted administrative actions: the village was taken over by the Government under the Madras Estates Abolition Act on 24-7-1954; classification and orders by the Assistant Settlement Officer in 1958 and subsequently in 1962/1963 (including an order dated 5-7-1963) were made and were the subject of W.P. No. 3972/1971 in the High Court, in which some of the settlement officer's later orders were quashed.
Procedurally, several defendants (7–10, 12–15, 18–20, 22–25) were set ex parte; the 10th defendant died. The Subordinate Judge framed issues, heard evidence (the detailed discussion of evidence is noted as not printed in the text), accepted the plaintiffs' case, held that the 1963 order was no longer valid in view of the High Court's order in W.P. No. 3972/1971, found plaintiffs in possession of the entire 7.68 acres, and decreed the suit in favour of the plaintiffs. Defendants 1 and 16 appealed from that judgment.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether the civil court has jurisdiction to go into the questions arising under section 11 of the Madras Estates Abolition Act, 1948 (the opinion phrases this as whether the civil court can adjudicate matters which the settlement authorities decide under the Act).
- Whether the plaintiffs were entitled to possession and other reliefs as granted by the lower court (i.e., whether the lower court's decree on the merits should be upheld).
Arguments of the Parties
Plaintiffs' Contentions
- Plaintiffs 1–4 claimed joint entitlement to the plaint schedule land (ac. 2-15 cents) as part of ac. 7-68 cents in Survey No. 54, on the basis of family possession from time immemorial and administrative records indicating a rough patta in favour of their predecessor (Ex. B.9, 1958) and later entries (Exs. B.94 & B.95).
- They alleged specific encroachments by the 1st defendant (0.08 acres) and by others occupying the 2.07-acre item; they asserted that successors of one occupier (Audisesha Reddy) had no right to the property.
- Plaintiffs relied on the High Court's decision in W.P. No. 3972/1971 which quashed certain orders of the settlement officer as void and indicated that some administrative orders (post-1959) were void for not adding the plaintiffs or their predecessors as parties; they asserted entitlement to a patta and possession.
Defendants' (Appellants') Contentions
- 1st Defendant: Argued that the plaintiffs' family owned only 4 acres in Survey No. 54, denied the alleged encroachment of 0.08 acres, disputed the alleged total extent of 7.68 acres shown in the 1958 order of the Assistant Settlement Officer, and sought dismissal of the suit.
- 16th Defendant: Contended that plaintiffs were not in possession of ac. 7-68 from time immemorial; challenged validity of the grant of patta (Ex. B.5) for the full 7.68 acres; denied specific encroachments alleged by plaintiffs; maintained that the Assistant Settlement Officer's order dated 5-7-1963 remained in force and that plaintiffs were entitled only to 4 acres; asserted that the additional 3.68 acres were in possession of other defendants and that earlier orders were superseded by the 1963 order; noted that in partition the 16th defendant received ac. 2-16 cents. On these bases the 16th defendant sought dismissal of the suit.
Table of Precedents Cited
| Precedent | Rule or Principle Cited For | Application by the Court |
|---|---|---|
| Jaya Syamala Rao v. Sri Radhakantha Swami, 1984 (1) ALT 286 | Held by a Division Bench of this Court that, though the Madras Estates Abolition Act contains no express ouster, the jurisdiction of the civil court under section 9 CPC is ousted for matters covered by section 11 of the Act; decisions under section 11 by settlement authorities are conclusive and not open to civil suit; the Act confers exclusive jurisdiction on settlement authorities and tribunals under the Act. | The present court noted this decision but treated it as impliedly overruled in light of a subsequent Supreme Court decision and therefore did not follow it as binding on the jurisdiction question; the court expressly stated the Division Bench view has been impliedly overruled. |
| K. Ranga v. M. Venkatarami Reddy, 1980 (2) AN. W. R. 332 (J. Jeevan Reddy) | Cited as part of the line of authority supporting the proposition that settlement authorities' decisions (including those under section 11) were intended to be conclusive and that the Act confers exclusive jurisdiction on settlement authorities and tribunals. | Referenced as part of the earlier jurisprudence the Division Bench relied on; the court considered this authority within the broader Division Bench approach but held the Supreme Court decision (below) impliedly overruled that approach. |
| State of Tamil Nadu v. Ramalingaswami (reported as 1985 (2) ALT 93 in the opinion) | The Supreme Court held that an order passed by the settlement authority either granting or refusing to grant ryotwan patta under section 11 must be regarded as an order made for revenue collection purposes (section 64-c) and is a summary decision; such a decision is not final and is subject to the civil court's jurisdiction. The Court distinguished section 11 from sections 12–14 (which provide for specific enquiries) and held that tribunals under the Act do not have the powers to grant the various reliefs that the civil court can grant. | The present court treated this Supreme Court decision as controlling, held that it implicitly overruled the Division Bench authority of this Court, and relied on it to conclude the civil court has jurisdiction to decide questions arising under section 11 of the Act. |
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The court structured its analysis around the two points framed on appeal.
On Point No. 1 (jurisdiction): The court first noted the existence of a Division Bench decision (Jaya Syamala Rao) holding that civil court jurisdiction in matters covered by section 11 of the Madras Estates Abolition Act was ousted and that settlement authorities' decisions under section 11 were conclusive. The court then examined a later Supreme Court decision (State of Tamil Nadu v. Ramalingaswami) and summarized the Supreme Court's reasoning: an order under section 11, granting or refusing ryotwan patta, is made for revenue-collection purposes (with reference to section 64-c) and is a summary decision; because it is summary and aimed at revenue assessment, such a decision is not final and does not operate as a bar to civil court jurisdiction in a suit founded on title and long possession; the Supreme Court distinguished section 11 from sections 12–14 (which provide for fuller inquiry) and observed that tribunals under the Act lack the remedial powers available to civil courts.
The court concluded that the Supreme Court's reasoning impliedly overruled the Division Bench decision of this Court and that the civil court therefore has jurisdiction to decide questions arising under section 11 of the Act. The opinion states this conclusion as a holding "in favour of the appellants" on point no. 1 (the text of the opinion records the holding in that phrase).
On Point No. 2 (merits): The court noted the factual record regarding the grant of pattas (Exs. B.5 and B.9, 1958) and referred to a discussion of evidence (which the opinion expressly notes is not printed in the text). Based on its review of the evidence, the court held that possession by the plaintiffs and their predecessors had been established since 1924 in respect of ac. 7-68 in Survey No. 54. The court agreed with the lower court that the plaintiffs were entitled to a patta under section 11 of the Act. The court also applied section 3(d) of the Act (as referenced in the opinion) to hold that plaintiffs were entitled to possession until pattas were actually granted in their favour; the court observed that such pattas had in fact been granted in 1958 (Ex. B.9) and that that order continued to hold. Consequently, the court found the appellants/defendants to be trespassers and liable to eviction, consistent with the decree of the lower court.
Note: The opinion explicitly states that the "discussion of evidence" is not printed in the provided text; the court's factual findings on possession and entitlement are reported in the opinion and are summarized above without additional factual inference.
Holding and Implications
Holding: APPEAL DISMISSED. The appellate court dismissed the appeal preferred by defendants 1 and 16 and confirmed the findings and decree of the Subordinate Judge, Gudur.
Direct consequences for the parties (as stated in the opinion):
- The lower court's decree in favour of the plaintiffs is confirmed.
- The court held that the plaintiffs and their predecessors had established possession of ac. 7-68 in Survey No. 54 since 1924 and were entitled to pattas under section 11 of the Act; Ex. B.9 (the 1958 rough patta) continues to hold according to the court's statement.
- The appellants/defendants were characterized as trespassers and held liable for eviction.
- No costs were awarded (the opinion concludes "No costs").
Broader implications: The court expressly followed a Supreme Court decision that treated section 11 orders as summary and not final for the purpose of excluding civil court jurisdiction. The opinion states that the Division Bench decision in Jaya Syamala Rao is impliedly overruled by that Supreme Court authority; beyond this, the opinion does not purport to lay down any new, standalone precedent distinct from its reliance on the Supreme Court's reasoning. If readers require the precise effect of these statements on future cases, they should consult the full texts of the precedents cited (which are identified in the Table of Precedents Cited above).
(1) This is an appeal preferred by defendants 1 and 16 against the judgment and decree in o. S. No. 50/78 on the file of sub - court, gudur, dated 8 - 3 - 1979.
(2) The above suit and o s. No. 10/78 were disposed of together by a common judgment by the learned subordinate judge. The four plaintiffs in o. S. No - 50/78 are arrayed as defendants 5 to 60 in o. S. No. 10/78. Defendants 1, 14 and 16 in o. S. No. 50/78 are respectively defendant no. 7, plaintiff and d. 8 in o. S. No. 10/78. There is no appeal by the present appellants who are defendants 7 and 8 in o. S. Np. 10/78 against the judgment and decree therein. The appellants have however preferred an appeal only against the judgment and decree in o. S. No. 50/78.
(3) In the present suit o. S. No. 50/78 the plaintiffs have sought for a declaration of their title to the plaint schedule land and for delivery of possession thereof and for payment of mesne profits from the date of suit till the date of delivery of possession and costs. The subject matter of the suit consists of two items. The first item is an extent of ac. 0 - 08 cents and the second item is of ac. 2 - 07 cents. The land is situated in kuchiwada village gudur taluk, nellore district. The suit originally filed on 1 - 8 - 74 was valued at rs. 483 - 75 for the purpose of jurisdiction. Subsequently it was transferred to sub - court, gudur.
(4) The plaint contentions are as follows : the plaintiffs 1 to 4 are jointly entitled to the plaint schedule land of an extent of ac. 2 - 15 cents out of ac. 7 - 68 cents in survey no. 54 in patta no. 30. It was in their family possession from times immemorial. The village kuchiwada was a shrotrium village and was taken over by the government under the madras estates abolition act (hereinafter referred to as the act) on 24 - 7 - 1954. In the survey conducted by the government it was found that the plaintiffs were in actual possession and enjoyment of \c. 7 - 68 cents and consequently a rough patta was granted in favour of the plaintiffs by the assistant settlement officer in the name of kasala subrahmanyam chetty, the grand father of plaintiffs 1 to 3 and the father of the 4th plaintiff some times before 1958. Kasala subrahmanyam chetty died in 1959. Subsequently the patta was transferred in the name of k. Subrahmanyam chetty grand father of the plaintiffs. The certified copy of no. 32 register showing the rough patta in favour of the said k. Subrahmanyam chetty is marked as ex. B. 9. Subsequently the patta was transferred in favour of plaintiffs in the no. 10 (1) account vide exs. B. 94 and b. 95. While as the 1st defendant occupied ac. 0 - 08 cents and one papa reddy and audisesha reddy occupied item no. 2 of ac. 2 - 07 cents in the north east of survey no. 54 (the subject matter of o. S. No. 50/78 is item 33 of the plaint a schedule in o. S. No. 10/78 and is separately shown as abcdefgm). The said audiseshareddy died two years before suit and the defendants 2 to 6 are his successors in occupation. They have no right tc the said property. But in spite of ex. B. 9 of the year 1958, the assistance settlement officer, nellore classified the land as anadheenam in 1962. Therefore the plaintiffs predecessor bala subrahmanyam chetty (son of late kasala subrahmanyam chetty) filed w. P. No. 3972/1971 for quashing this order and also the subsequent orders rejecting the revision, passed by the director of settlements and board of revenue. The high court quashed the latter orders of the settlement officer as void. Consequently the order of the assistant settlement officer dated 5 - 7 - 1963 stating that the plaintiffs are entitled only to 4 acres in survey no. 54 is also void as neither the plaintiffs nor their predecessors were added 'as parties, after the death of late subrahmanyam chetty in 1959. It was also observed by the high court in w. P. No. 3972/71 that it was open to the petitioners therein to challenge the order of the assistant settlement officer dated 5 - 7 - 1963 in appropriate proceedings. The defendants 7 to 22 are the legal heirs of the other parties before the assistant settlement officer whose order is questioned in this suit.
(5) The defendants 7 to 10, 12 to 15, 18 to 20, 22 to 25 were set ex - parts. The 10th defendant died.
(6) The 1st defendant filed a written statement and stated that the plaintiffs family owned only 4 acres in survey no. 54 and they are not entitled to anything in excess thereof. He denied encroachment in ac. 0. 08 cents as alleged by the plaintiffs. The extent of ac. 7 - 68 cents for which the plaintiff made a total claim is wrongly mentioned in the order of the assistant settlement officer of 1958. We therefore prayed for dismissal of the suit.
(7) The 16th defendant filed a written statement and contended that the plaintiffs are not in possession of ac. 7 - 68 cents in s. No. 54 or from times immemorial, that the grant of patta as per ex. B 5 in their favour for the total extent of ac. 7 - 68 cents in the name of kasala subrahmanyam chetty is not valid and denied that audisesha reddy encroached into ac. 2 - 07 cents or the defendants 2 to 6 encroached only two years prior to the suit. The order of the assistant settlement officer dated 5 - 7 - 1963 is in force and the plaintiffs are entitled only to 4 acres in s. No. 54. The plaintiffs predecessors owned only 4 acres as shrotriumdars in 1924 inam patta no. 93. The rest of the ac. 3 - 68 cents is in the possession of 1st defendants and audisesha reddy the junior paternal uncle of defendants 2 to 6 and defendants 7, 11 to 16, 18 and 21. The application of the sbrotriumdars for patta in respect of ac. 3 - 68 cents was rejected and their appeal against it was also dismissed and patta was granted for these ac. 3 - 68 cents to the defendants who were in possession. The earlier order of the assistant settlement officer of 1959 is superseded by the subsequent order of that officer of the year 1963. In partition among the defendants ac. 2 - 16 cents fell to the share of the 16th defendant. The suit is therefore liable to be dismissed.
(8) On the basis of the above pleadings the learned subordinate judge framed various issues and discussed the evidence in paragraph 32 of his judgment. He accepted the plaintiffs case and held that the subsequent order of the settlement officer dated 5 - 7 - 1963 is no longer valid in view of the order of the high court in w. P. No. 3972 of 1971 and that the plaintiffs were in possession of ac. 7 - 68 cents and that the suit property of ac. 2 - 15 cents is also included in the total of ac. 7 - 68 cents of which the plaintiffs and their predecessors - in - title were in possession from time immemorial. He therefore accepted the plaintiffs right to a patta for this extent and decreed the suit.
(9) Against this judgment the defendants 1 and 16 have preferred this appeal.
(10) The two points that arise for consideration in this appeal are as follows : (1) whether the civil court has jurisdiction to go into the questions existing under section 13 of the madras estates abolition act, 1948 ? (2) whether the plaintiffs are entitled to possession and other reliefs as granted by the lower court ? point no. 1 : a division bench of this court consisting of raghuvir and k. Ramaswamy, jj held in jaya syamala rao vs. Sri radhakantha swami, 1984 (1) alt 286. That though there is no express provision under the act the jurisdiction of the civil court under section 9 c. P. C. Is ousted for agitating the matter covered by section 11 of the act. They held that the decision arrived at under the act under section 11 by the authorities ate conclusive and not liable to be questioned in a civil suit and that the act is intended to confer exclusive jurisdiction on the settlement authorities and the tribunals constituted under that act including the one covered by section 11 in k. Ranga vs. M. Venkatarami reddy, 1980 (2) an. W. R. 332. Rendered by jeevan reddy, j.
(11) In my opinion the above decision of the division bench must be deemed to have bean impliedly overruled by the recent decision of the supreme court in stale of tamilnadu vs. Ramalingaswamigul, 1985 (2) alt 93 nrc. The supremo court there held that the order passed by the settlement authority either granting or refusing to grant ryotwan patta to a ryot under section 11 of the act must be regarded as having been passed to achieve the purposes of the act as mentioned in section 64 - c and that must have reference only to the purpose of revenue collection and therefore any decision rendered by the settlement officer while taking a decision for the aforesaid purpose is not final and is subject to the decision of the civil court. It was pointed out that there was distinction between proceedings under section 11 of the act on the one hand and proceedings under section 12, 13 and 14 of the act. In respect of section 11, there is no express provision for any enquiry into the nature or character of the land before granting or refusing to grant such patta to the applicant whereas the specific provision for such enquiry is made in sections 12 to 14 of the act. The decision arrived at under section 11 of the act is arrived at in a summary manner for the purpose of granting or refusiag patta while considering the question of payment of assessment. A summary decision of this type in an enquiry conducted for revenue purposes cannot be regarded as final or conclusive so as to constitute a bar to the jurisdiction of the civil court in adjudicating upon the same issue arising in a suit filed by a ryot on the basis of his title and long and uninterrupted possession. Further the supreme court held that the tribunals constituted under the act do not have the powers to grant the various reliefs which can be granted by the civil court.
(12) In my view the decision of the supreme court impliedly overrules the decision of the above division bench of this court in jaya syamatorao's case (supra). I therefore hold that the civil court has jurisdiction to decide the questions arising under section 11 of the act not with standing any earlier decision of the settlement authority as to the persons entitled to the grant of patta under section 11 of the act. I hold on point no. 1 accordingly in favour of the appellants.
(13) Point no. 2 :i have already set out the facts relating to grant of patta in favour of the predecessors - in - title of the plaintiffs respondents as per exs. B. 5 and b. 9 in 1958. (on a discussion of the evidence the court came to the following conclusion. Discussion of evidence not printed editor).
(14) I therefore hold that on the merits the possession of the respondents plaintiffs and their predecessors in title has been established since 1924 and in respect of ac. 7 - 68 cents s. No. 54 and the lower court was right in holding that the plaintiffs are entitled to patta under section 11 of the act. Under section 3 (d) of the act the plaintiffs are entitled to possession till. Patfas are actually granted in their favour. In fact such pattas were already granted in their favour as per ex b. 9 in 1958 and that order continues to bold. The appellants - defendants are therefore trespassers and are therefore liable for eviction as held by the lower court.
(15) In the result the appeal is dismissed and the findings of the lower court are confirmed. No costs.
Alert