Tenants and landlords disputed possession and injunction over agricultural land; revenue authorities had declared tenants cultivatory possessors. The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decree for permanent injunction for the tenants over 19.80 acres and its review clarifying that extent, dismissing both sets of appeals under Article 136.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
[2010] 1 S.C.R. 297
PINNINTI KISTAMMAAND ORS. A
V.
DUWADA PARSURAM CHOWDARY & ORS. (Civil Appeal Nos. 6900-6906 of 2001)
JANUARY 8, 2010
B
[TARUN CHATTERJEE AND HARJIT SINGH BEDI, JJ.]
· Andhra Pradesh Record of Rights in Land Act, 1971:
Revenue authorities' order declaring cultivatory possession of tenants - HELD: High Court has rightly held that the order of Tehsildar having achieved status of. finality cannot be upset. by civil court and that the landlords had failed to prove their possession and cultivation in respect of suit land to the extent of 19. 80 acres.
c
D
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908:
s.114 and Or. 47, r.1 - Review - Clarification by High Court of its judgment passed in second appeals - HELD: High Court in the original judgment in second appeals had considered both the batches of appeals arising out of the suits of tenants and also cross suits of landlords - That apart, tenants had filed suits limiting their claim to the extent of 19.80 acres of land - Therefore, High Court was justified in reviewing the judgment, allowing the second appeals of tenants only to the extent of 19.80 acres of land - There is no ground for interference in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 136 of the Constitution of India - Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 136.
E
F
The appellants in CA Nos. 6900-6906 of 2001 filed suits claiming tenancy rights in respect of 19.80 acres of land and praying for permanent injunction restraining the respondents(landlords) from interfering with their
G
297
H
298 SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2010] 1 S.C.R.
A possession over the said land. The landlords filed crosssuits praying for injunction over 181 acres of land which also included the aforementioned 19.80 acres of land. The tenants also made complaint to Revenue authorities alleging manipulation of revenue records by the B landlords, whereupon the Tehsildar conducted inquiry and by order dated 10.9.1984 declared the appellanttenants and others as cultivatory tenants. The said order was affirmed by the Collector and the Commissioner of Land Revenue. The suits filed by the tenants were c decreed. By a separate judgment the cross-suits filed by the landlords were dismissed. The landlords preferred two sets of appeals - one led by A.S. No. 12 of 1996 from the suits of landlords and the other led by A.S. No. 11 of 1996 from the suits of tenants. The first appellate court, by two separate judgments allowed both the sets of appeals. The 0 tenants challenged both the judgments in two sets of second appeals before the High Court, which assumed that all the appeals were filed against a common judgment in A.S. No. 12 of 1996 and the batch. The High Court granted a decree for permanent injunction in E favour of the tenants. Thereupon, the landlords filed a review petition, which was allowed by the High Court clarifying its judgment that the appeals of tenants as regards the 19.80 acres stood allowed, and landlords' appeals to that extent stood dismissed and their other F batch appeals partly allowed. Aggrieved, the tenants as also the landlords filed the appeals.
Dismissing both the sets of appeals, the Court
HELD: 1. The High Court granted a decree for G permanent injunction in favour of the tenants mainly on the basis that the tenants were in possession and cultivation of the lands in dispute and after considering the fact the landlords had failed to prove their possession and cultivation in respect of the lands in question by
H
PINNINTI KISTAMMA AND ORS. v. DUWADA 299 PARSURAM CHOWDARY
producing reliable and material evidence before the court. A In this regard the High Court rightly accepted the findings of the Tehsildar which had achieved the status of finality. Such being the position, there is no merit in these appeals so far as the Landlords/appellants are concerned. [Para 16 and 19] [310-A-B-C-D] B
B
Abdulla Bin Ali v. Ga/appa, AIR 1985 SC 577, State of Tamil Nadu v. Ramalinga Samigal Nadam, AIR 1986 SC 794; Sangubhotla Venkataramaiah v. Kallu Venkataswamy AIR 1976 AP 402, referred to.
c
F
Case Law Reference :
AIR 1985 SC 577 referred to Para 17 AIR 1986 SC 794 referred to Para 17 G AIR 1976 AP 402 referred to Para 17
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 6900-6906 of 2001.
From the Judgment & Order dated 27.03.1997 of the High H
300 SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2010] 1 S.C.R.
A Court of Judicature Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad in S.A. Nos. 374, 383, 398, 402, 403, 404 & 397 of 1996.
WITH
C.A. No. 6907-6946 of 2001.
B
Jitendra Sharma, P.N. Jha, Minakshi Vij, V.G. Pragasam, P.S. Narasimha, L. Roshmani, Sekhar G. Devasa, Sanjay Bansal, G.K. Bansal, P.N. Jha, for the appearing parties.
c
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
TARUN CHATTERJEE, J. 1. These two batches of appeals are directed against the judgment and decree dated 27th of March, 1997 passed by the High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad in Second Appeal Nos. 361 of 1996 & D batch and Second Appeal Nos. 374 of 1996 & batch and also against the judgment and order dated 10th of September, 1997 of the same High Court in Review Petition Nos. 6980 of 1997 and batch whereby the High Court modified its earlier order dated 27th of March, 1997.
E
PINNINTl KISTAMMA AND ORS. v. DUWADA 301 PARSURAM CHOWDARY [TARUN CHATTERJEE, J.]
enfranchised lnams in Kambirigam Mokhasa in the erstwhile A Tarla Estate, Tekkali Taluk. They had been cultivating the plaint schedule land as tenants from time immemorial under, inamdars, predecessors-in-interest of Landlords by paying Rajbhagam paddy to them. In 1804, the British Government granted "Sannad" to the Tarla Estate wherein Kambirigam was B '-· described as a Jagir which was an Estate within the meaning of Section 3 of the Estate Land Act, 1908. However, no patta was granted to the Landlords or their predecessors-in-interest. Therefore, according to the tenants, the rights of the Landlords in respect of the lands in question vested in the Government c by virtue of Madras Estates Abolition and Conversion into Raiyotwari Act of 1948. (for short 'Estates Abolition Act'). The tenants had complained to the Revenue Authorities alleging that the Revenue records were manipulated by the Landlords. Pursuant to this, Tehsildar, Palasa conducted an enquiry D wherein it was found that the Tenants and other raiyots were occupants and cultivators in the Revenue Records for Fasli 1389. Being aggrieved by these orders, Landlords filed a Writ petition, which came to be registered as W.P.No. 3189of1980 before the High Court of Andhra Pradesh claiming that they were not given an opportunity to be heard in the enquiry E conducted by the Tehsildar. Allowing the Writ Petition, the High Court vide its order dated 24th of August, 1982 quashed the order of the Tehsildar. However, the High Court had given liberty to the Tehsildar to conduct a fresh enquiry after giving 0ue hearing to the parties. Accordingly, the Tehsildar Palasa, F conducted an enquiry again and passed an order dated 10th of September, 1984, declaring the Tenants and others as cultivators in Kambirigam village and further observed that since the time of their ancestors, the Tenants and others had been cultivating the lands in dispute separately and also making G- pa):'ment to the Mokhasadars. This order was confirmed by the Collector and Commissioner of Land Revenue.
B '-· -·
E
G-
H
302 SUPREME COURT REPORTS
(2010] 1 S.C.R.
c 5. By its judgment and order dated 21st of July, 1987, the District Munsif, Palasa, decreed the suits filed by the Tenants praying for an order of permanent injunction, restraining the Landlords from interfering with their plaint schedule lands. By a separate order, District Munsif dismissed the cross suits filed D by the Landlords praying for an order of injunction against the Tenants.
G 7. Disposing of the seven appeals in A.S.No.11/1996 and batch, the Principal Subordinate Judge noted that before the Trial Court, the plaintiffs and defendants in all seven suits, had taken similar pleas. After narrating the contentions of both the parties and examining the materials on record, the first H appellate court came to a finding of facts, inter alia, as follows:
PINNINTI KISTAMMA AND ORS. v. DUWADA 303 PARSURAM CHOWDARY [TARUN CHATTERJEE, J.]
H
304 SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[201 O] 1 S.C.R.
PINN INTI KISTAMMA AND ORS. v. DUWADA 305 PARSURAM CHOWDARY [TARUN CHATTERJEE, J.]
tenant in the findings given by the Tehsildar. Thus, the order of Tehsildar was found not to be based on proper and legal evidence. On the other hand, the names of the Landlords have been recorded in the revenue registers as the personal cultivators of the plaint schedule lands in the No.2 Adangal till 1979, i.e. for which these batch suits were filed. As against this, neither the tenants entered the witness box to support their specific cases, nor did they produce any reliable documentary evidence to rebut the entries in the record. The testimonies of witnesses they produced were not reliable.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
306 SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2010] 1 S.C.R.
A 10. Accordingly, the first appellate court allowed the appeals of the landlords and dismissed the suit of the tenants against which second appeals were preferred by the tenants before a learned Single Judge of the Andhra Pradesh High Court which came to be registered as S.A.Nos.361 of 1996 s and batch and S.A.Nos.374 of 1996 and batch. The second appeals were directed against both the judgments and decrees dated 15th of April, 1996 passed by the Principal Subordinate Judge, Srikakulam in two batches of First Appeals, i.e. A.S.Nos.11 and batch and A.S.Nos.12 and batch. The High C Court by the impugned judgment allowed all the Second Appeals, numbered as above.
F
H
PINNINTI KISTAMMA AND ORS. \·. DUWADA 307 PARSURAM CHOWDARY [TARUN CHATIERJEE, J.]
however, the High Court was of the opinion that the question whether the Sannad granted in 1804 assumed the character of an Estate within the meaning of Estate Abolition Act was of no consequence at all, because factum of the grant of sannad in 1804 itself was doubtful. The Tenants had not adduced any evidence to prove that the rights of the Landlords, if any, had vested in the Government. In the impugned judgment, the High Court came to a conclusion that the issue No.1 should not be examined in view of the aforesaid conclusion arrived at by it. For appreciation of the finding arrived at by the High Court, we may reproduce the same.
"However, on going through the plaint O.S No. 75/80 it appears that no plea was made in that regard. The only averment made in the plaint is to the effect that the plaint schedule land was a portion of the pre-settlement unenfranchised inam in Kambirigam Mokhasa in the erstwhile Tarla Estate, and the Tarla Estate was abolished by the Government under the Act XXVI of 1948 but Kambirigam Mokhasa village was not taken over as it was not an "Estate" or an lnam Village within the meaning of the Abolition Act and that no patta was granted either to the defendants or .their predecessors in interest either under the Abolition Act, 1948 or Act XXXVll of 1956. The defendants therefore lost their right, if any, in the plaint Schedule land as it vested in the Government as stated in the concluding part of Para 3 of the Plaint. The Plaintiffs, who are the appellants before us do not seem to have produced any document in respect of these averments made in paragraph 3 of the plaint. I am, therefore, of the opinion that no useful purpose would be served in examining this question whether the respondents acquired nay right to dispossess the appellants."
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2010) 1 S.C.R.
308
G of September, 1984, the High Court referred to the provisions of Andhra Pradesh Record of Rights in Land Act, 1971 and after considering the decisions of Abdulla Bin Ali v. Galappa, [AIR 1985 SC 577), State of Tamil Nadu v. Ramalinga Samigal Nadam, [AIR 1986 SC 794), Sangubhotla
H Venkataramaiah v. Kal!u Venkataswamy, [AIR 1976 AP 402),
PINNINTI KISTAMMA AND ORS. v. DUWADA 309 PARSURAM CHOWDARY [TARUN CHATTERJEE, J.]
which discussed the principles relating to exclusion of A jurisdiction of the Civil Courts by Statutory Tribunals, came to the conclusion that the order of the Tehsildar dated 10th of September, 1984 having achieved the status of finality cannot be upset by the Civil Court. The High Court further found that the Tenants were cultivating the land in question and, therefore, B they were entitled to a decree for permanent injunction against the landlords and accordingly the High Court allowed S.A.Nos.361, 365, 366, 374, 383, 384, 391, 393, 394, 395, 396, 397, 398, 399, 400, 401,402, 403, 404 of 1996, and the judgment of the First Appellate Court in A.S.No.12 was set c aside.
" .... the fact remains that the decision of the Revenue D Authorities which came subsequent to the filing of the Civil Suits stood unchallenged and not contradicted. The Tehsildar order dated 10th of September 1984, therefore, achieved the status of finality. On that account, therefore, the Landlords lost complete ground for denying the tenancy E rights of the Tenants-Appellants over the disputed lands. However, even independent of that proposition the evidence howsoever thin it may be, has weighed in favor of the persons who claim to be cultivators of the disputed land. The Tehsildar's second report speaks volumes about F the tenant's case that they have been cultivating the disputed laqds since the times of their ancestors and I am loath to disregard the same.
E
F
The Tenants-Appellants' appeals therefore deserve to be G allowed. Hence the appeals bearing no. 361, 365, 366, ~7.~4.~3,3M,392,~3,3W,3%,~6,397,398,~9. 400, 402, 401,403 and 404 qt 1996 are allowed and the impugned judgement and the order dated 15.04.96 in A.S. No. 12 of 1996 and batch of lower appellate court is quashed and set aside. No costs." H
H
[201 OJ 1 S.C.R.
310 SUPREME COURT REPORTS
A 19. In view of our discussions made herein above and in view of the fact that the High Court had granted a decree for permanent injunction in favour of the tenants mainly on the basis that the tenants were in possession and cultivation of the disputed lands and after considering the fact the landlords had B failed to prove their possession and cultivation in respect of the lands in question by producing reliable and material evidence before the court. Accordingly, as noted herein above, by the impugned judgment, the High Court had allowed the second appeal and granted a decree for permanent injunction in favour c of the tenants/appellants who are respondents before us. Such being the position, we do not find any merit in these appeals so far as the Landlords/appellants are concerned. However, the Landlords filed a review petition being Review Petition No.6980 of 1997 and batch against the group of second appeals, 0 namely, S.A.No.361 of 1996 and batch under Section 114 read with Order 47 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Among the many grounds that were taken, the High Court found merit only in one ground which is as follows-
(1) When there was no defence and no proof emerging E from the documentary or oral evidence, the suits filed by the Landlords could not be dismissed as the extent claimed by the Tenants/appellants was only 19.80 Acres.
"The Tenants appeal covering a total extent of Ac 19.80 cents therefore deserved to be allowed. Hence the Appeals bearing Nos. 361/96, 365/96, 366/96, 367/96, 384/96, 392/96, 393/96, 394/96, 395/96, 396/96, 399/96, G 400/96 and 401/96 are allowed, covering a total extent of Ac. 19.80 cents as mentioned in the schedules in the respective plaints filed by the tenants out of the total extent of Ac. 181.90 cents of lands claimed in the respective plaints filed by the landlords in their respective plaints and H the impugned judgment and order dated 15th of April 1996
PINNINTI KISTAMMAAND ORS. v. DUWADA 311 PARSURAM CHOWDARY [TARUN CHATTERJEE, J.]
in AS. No. 12 of 1996 and batch of the Lower Appellate A Court is quashed and set aside. The Landlords' claim to the aforesaid extent of AC No. 19.80 cents, thus, stands dismissed and to that extent only the Second Appeals Nos. 374/96, 383/96, 397/96, 398/96, 402/96, 403/96 and 404/ 96 stand partly allowed. No costs." B
B
C
D
E
F
R.P.
Appeals dismissed.
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court rightly held that the Tehsildar's order declaring tenants as cultivatory possessors, having attained finality unchallenged, could not be upset by the civil court.
Whether the High Court was justified in reviewing its judgment in second appeals to confine the tenants' decree to the 19.80 acres claimed by them.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Abdulla Bin Ali v. GalappaReferred¶17
AIR 1985 SC 577 · Who else cites this
State of Tamil Nadu v. Ramalinga Samigal NadamReferred¶17
AIR 1986 SC 794 · Who else cites this
Sangubhotla Venkataramaiah v. Kallu VenkataswamyReferred¶17
AIR 1976 AP 402 · Who else cites this
6 provisions across 6 enactments
Pinninti Kistamma and others
Duwada Parsuram Chowdary and others
Tarun Chatterjee
Harjit Singh Bedi
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
