The State of Andhra Pradesh appealed against a decree in an original suit for arrears of rent. The High Court held that the liability to pay unreduced rent was established by a prior Supreme Court judgment and dismissed the appeal, finding no error in the trial court's judgment.
Appeal dismissed. No order as to costs.
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.
HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY AND
HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE S.V. BHATT
A.S.No.1567 OF 1986
JUDGMENT: (Per LNR,J)
This appeal is filed by the State of Andhra Pradesh assailing the judgment and decree dated 18.12.1985 passed by the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Narsapur, in O.S.No.121 of 1971. The suit was filed by the respondents herein, who are the legal representatives of a zamindar of Kalipatnam, West Godavari District. The subject matter of the suit is for the arrears of the rent in respect of the lands covered by the estate.
The genesis was that the zamindar was collecting the rents in respect of about 5000 acres of land at a particular rate. The erstwhile State of Madras, under which the estate was existing, passed the Rent Reduction Act slashing down the rent to 3/7ths of the existing ones. This Act was followed by the A.P. Estates Abolition (Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1948 (for short ‘the Act’). The entire estate stood vested in the government while protecting the right of the zamindar who received compensation.
Challenging the act of the State, applying the provisions of the Rent Reduction Act to the estate, the
zamindar filed O.S.No.75 of 1952 in the Court of Subordinate Judge, Narsapur. His plea was two fold viz., that the land held by him does not constitute estate, as defined under the Act, and that the Rent Reduction Act cannot be applied since the lands are wet. The trial Court decreed the suit in part holding that the application of the Rent Reduction Act was not proper, but repelled the contention as to the character of the land viz., whether it is estate or not? The zamindar on the one hand and the State on the other filed appeals before this Court in A.S.No.21 of 1959 and A.S.No.362 of 1958 respectively. Both the appeals were dismissed. The matters were carried to the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal Nos.1619 and 1620 of 1968. The effect of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court is that the suit as framed was decreed in its entirety. A liberty, however, was given to the State to issue notification afresh.
O.S.No.121 of 171 was filed claiming arrears of the rent which happens to be the difference between the actual rents and those that were reduced by applying the provisions of the Rent Reduction Act. The trial Court decreed the suit. Hence, this appeal.
Heard the learned Advocate General for the appellant and the learned counsel for the respondents.
The trial Court framed the following issues and additional issues for consideration:
ISSUES FRAMED ON 29.08.1972:
1. Whether the plaintiffs who were impleaded as the legal representatives of Kandregula Jagannadharao Gopalarao in the Supreme Court are not entitled to file this suit?
2. Whether in view of the undertaking given by the defendant in the High Court, which was continued as per the order of the Supreme Court in S.C.M.P.No.1320 of 1965 the Government is not bound to pay to the plaintiffs rents at original rates?
3. Whether in view of the undertaking given by the defendant, is the defendant entitled to contend that the defendant is liable to pay to the inamdar only the amount actually collected?
4. Whether the Government is not liable to pay to the plaintiff the arrears of rent from Fasli 1357 to Fasli 1381, having prevented to Inamdar from making collections of rent?
5. Whether the suit is premature?
6. Whether the plaintiffs have to wait till the Government has issued a fresh notification under Rent Reduction Act?
7. Whether the calculation given in the annexure is not correct?
8. To what amount is the plaintiff entitled?
9. To what relief?
ADDITIONAL ISSUES FRAMED ON 18.07.1974:
1. Whether the Will dated 02.11.1973 is true and valid?
2. Whether the fifth plaintiff is entitled to claim the suit amount?
ADDITIONAL ISSUES FRAMED ON 23.07.1977:
1. Whether the claim beyond three years from the institution of the suit is barred by time?
2. Whether the undertaking given by the defendant in High Court was continued in the Supreme Court also
as contended by the plaintiff?
3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recover the amount if the undertaking is false?
(In view of issue No.2 framed on 23.07.1977, issued No.3 framed on 29.08.1972 was deleted)
ADDITIONAL ISSUE FRAMED ON 24.10.1981:
1. Whether the plaintiffs prevented the Government taking over the Estate and if so it is a bar to claim the amount under suit?
ADDITIONAL ISSUE FRAMED ON 24.07.1984:
1. Whether the payments and deductions pleaded in paragraph 13(A) of the written statement are true?
On behalf of the respondents, PWs.1 to 3 were examined and Exs.A-1 to A-44 were filed. On behalf of the appellant, DWs.1 and 2 were examined and Exs.B-1 to B-25 were filed.
In this appeal, the only point that arises for consideration is:
Whether the respondents made out a case for grant of decree?
The subject matter of the suit, broadly stated, no doubt is one for recovery of amount. The fact, however, remains that the contours of it were determined in the earlier set of proceedings initiated by the zamindar. The final pronouncement came from the Hon’ble Supreme Court whereunder it was held that the Rent Reduction Act cannot be applied to the lands held by the zamindar and
that the very categorization of lands is not proper. Though the appellant was given liberty to take remedial steps, the liability incurred by it to pay the rents to the zamindar for the period during which it enjoyed the possession of the land cannot be wiped away. Once the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that the zamindar was entitled to collect the rents without any reduction, the present suit was almost in the form of an application for mesne profits. Hardly, there was any necessity or scope for adjudicating the matter on contested issues.
[We do not find any error in the judgment rendered by the trial Court.
Appeal is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.
The miscellaneous petitions in this appeal shall also stand disposed of.
_______________________ L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J
____________ S.V. BHATT, J
09th July, 2013 Mar/Lrkm
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the respondents made out a case for grant of decree in the appeal against the decree of the trial court?
Whether Liability of Government to pay rents arises despite the Rent Reduction Act not being applied due to categorization issues?
Whether the appeal regarding arrears of rent should be allowed or dismissed?
State of Andhra Pradesh
Legal Representatives of Zamindar of Kalipatnam
L. Narasimha Reddy
S.V. Bhatt
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
