The High Court dismissed a civil revision petition challenging the dismissal of an injunction suit. It held that land dispute between landlord and tenant falls within the Andhra Pradesh Tenancy Act and must be resolved by Tribunal, barng civil court jurisdiction.
Civil revision petition is misconceived and accordingly dismissed.
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.
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO
CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.2505 of 2010
Dated:12.07.2010
Between:
Suvari Sivayya.
….Petitioner
And
Rudraraju Leelavathi, And others.
…Respondents
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.2505 of 2010
ORDER:
The petitioner is the plaintiff. He filed the suit, being O.S.No.176 of 2009, on the file of the Court of the Senior Civil Judge, Bhimavaram, for perpetual injunction. The first defendant is the landlord of an extent of Acs.3.26 cents situated at Vandram Village of Undi Mandal in West Godavari District. Second defendant is the General Power of Attorney holder of the first defendant, and the third defendant purchased the property. The petitioner also filed I.A.No.723 of 2009 under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. By an order dated 17.08.2009 the trial Court made ad interim ex parte injunction absolute. The appeal filed by respondent Nos.1 and 2 (defendant Nos.2 and 3), being C.M.A.No.39 of 2009, was allowed on 01.05.2010 and the order of the trial Court was reversed on the ground that the civil Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the suit. Aggrieved by the order of the learned III Additional District Judge (Fast Track Court), Bhimavaram, the present Civil Revision Petition is filed. Admittedly, the petitioner claimed that he is the tenant of the suit schedule property belonging to the first defendant. He alleges that the first defendant with the active connivance of second and third defendants is trying to dispossess the petitioner. Therefore, it is certainly a dispute between the landlord and tenant, which falls within the ambit of the Andhra Pradesh (Andhra Area) Tenancy Act, 1956 (the Act). As held by this Court in Bodapati Ramanamma v Chilla Hanumantha Rao[1] , the dispute arising between the landlord and tenant under the Act is to be resolved by the specially constituted Tribunals and the civil Court’s jurisdiction is barred. In that view of the matter, this Court does not find any infirmity in the order passed by the learned III Additional District Judge (Fast Track Court), Bhimavaram. The Civil Revision Petition is misconceived, and the same is accordingly dismissed.
(V.V.S.RAO, J)
12.07.2010
vs
[1] 2009 (2) ALT 171
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the Civil Court has jurisdiction to entertain a suit for perpetual injunction in a disputed landlord and tenant matter under the Andhra Pradesh Tenancy Act.
Whether the order of the Additional District Judge reversing the injunction stands correct.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Bodapati Ramanamma v Chilla Hanumantha RaoExplained¶12
2009 (2) ALT 171
Suvari Sivayya
Rudraraju Leelavathi
V.V.S.Rao
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
