CHITTOOR CHEGAIAH & ORS. versus PEDDA JEEYANGAR MUTT & ANR.

Citation: [2010] 3 S.C.R. 123 · Decided: 08-03-2010 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: P. SATHASIVAM · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

[2010] 3 S.C.R. 123 
CHITTOOR CHEGAIAH & ORS. 
v. 
PEDDA JEEYANGAR MUTT & ANR. 
(Civil Appeal No. 2012 of 2002 & Ors. Etc.) 
MARCH 8, 2010 
[P. SATHASIVAM AND H.L. DATTU, JJ.] 
Andhra Pradesh (A.A.) Tenancy Act, 1956: 
A 
B 
ss. 2(c), (f) and 13 - Landlord-tenant relationship - Suit c 
for eviction on ground of non-payment of rent - Resisted on 
ground of res judicata and permanent lease patta - HELD: 
In the earlier litigation the High Court had held that it did not 
have jurisdiction in the matter in view of the special process 
prescribed in the Act and, that the title with respect to tenancy 
0 
rights had been perfected owing to adverse possession -
These two rulings are not in conflict with each other and are 
equally binding - Jurisdiction of High Court was ousted only 
to limited extent with respect to eviction of tenants and 
possession of property owing to procedure provided under the 
E 
Act - But the Court continued to have jurisdiction with respect 
to determination of title to the property and as such held that 
title of ownership belonged to plaintiffs and defendants had 
title with respect to tenancy rights on conditions prescribed 
under the permanent lease patta - Therefore, earlier decision 
F 
of High Court was merely with respect to tenancy title and 
would not bar instant eviction proceedings uls 13 - It cannot 
be said that a permanent lease would not result in tenant-
landlord relationship since it is implied that in such an 
agreement non-fulfilment of prescribed terms (non-payment 
of rent in the instant case) would give right to landlord to evict G 
the tenant - The finding of the appellate authority that tenants 
committed default in payment of rent was rightly affirmed by 
High Court - Eviction of tenant not interfered with - Code of 
Civil Procedure, 1908 -
s. 11 - Res judicata - Deeds and 
123 
H 
124 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2010] 3 S.C.R. 
A documents - Permanent lease patta -
Tenant-Landlord 
relationship. 
The suit property, namely, 29 acres 59 cents of land, 
belonged to respondent no. 1-Mutt. The head of the Mutt 
8 
granted two permanent leases, and the lessees and their 
transferees sold the land to one 'MM'. The Mutt filed a suit 
against 'MM' and pursuant to a compromise during the 
pendency of the suit the Mutt executed a permanent lease 
patta dated 11.3.1931 in favour of 'MM' for the entire land. 
'MM' sold 10 acres of the land and the transferee further 
C sold the land to the father of the appellants in CA No. 2012 
of 2002, under a registered sale deed dated 25.5.1938. In 
1964, the Mutt filed a suit for declaration and possession 
against the father of the appellants. The suit was decreed. 
The consequent appeals bearing AS No. 130 of 1973 and 
D AS No.2413 of 1973 were allowed by the High Court 
holding that the Court did not have jurisdiction over the 
matters owing to the special process prescribed under 
the Andhra Pradesh (AA) Tenancy Act, 1956 and that the 
title with respect to tenancy rights was perfected owing 
E to adverse possession. This judgment achieved finality 
as no appeal was filed thereagainst. 
In the year 1980 the Mutt filed eviction petition 
bearing ATC No. 35 of 1980 against the appellants and 
F the same was dismissed on 24.8.1987. The appeal filed 
by the Mutt bearing ATC No. 9 of 1987 was allowed by 
the Additional District Judge on 3.6.1996. The revision 
petitions were dismissed by the High Court on 
17.11.2000. Aggrieved, the appellants filed the appeals. 
G 
It was contended for the appellants that in view of the 
permanent lease patta dated 11.3.1931, and the judgment 
of the High Court in AS No. 130 of 1973, which became 
final, the Mutt lost the right to recover the land from the 
appellants and that judgment would operate as re 
H judicata. 
CHITTOOR CHEGAIAH & ORS. v. PEDDA 
125 
JEEYANGAR MUTT & ANR. 
The questions for consideration before the Court 
A 
were: (i) whether the decision of the High Court in 
holding that the findings given in A.S. No. 130 of 1973, 
the earlier judgment on the same subject matter, would 
not operate as res judicata, when in the said decision the 
High Court had categorically held that the ~ 1.pellants B 
perfected their title by adverse posses~ion in the 
schedule property?; and (ii) whether a permanent lease 
would give rise to a tenant-landlord relationship within the 
meaning of the Andhra Pradesh (AA) Act, 1956 and the 
High Court was correct in holding that the Mutt was c 
entitled to recover the su

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.