DOKISEELA RAMULU versus SRI SANGAMESWARA SWAMY VARU & OTHERS

Citation: [2016] 8 S.C.R. 459 · Decided: 29-11-2016 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: J.S. KHEHAR · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

[2016] 8 S.C.R. 459 
DOKISEELA RAMULU 
v. 
SRI SANGAMESWARA SWAMY VARU & OTHERS 
(Civil Appeal No. 11306 of2016) 
NOVEMBER 29, 2016 
[JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR AND ARUN MISHRA, JJ.] 
Land laws and Agricultural Tenancy: 
A 
B 
Andhra Pradesh (Andhra Area) Estates (Abolition and 
Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1948 - ss. 3 and 11 - Suit by C 
appellant claiming to be cultivating tenant of the suit land much 
prior to Notification u/s. 3' of the Act and thus, was a 'Ryotwari 
Pattadar' of the land - Also sought for injunction so as to restrain 
the erstwhile landlord (respondent No. 1 - Diety) from interfering 
with his possession - Estate Officer, Devasthanam also filed a suit 
D 
asserting that diety-respondent No. 1 was the absolute owner of the 
land and the appellant was cultivating the land as its tenant and on 
coming into force of Endowments Act, 1987, the rights of the 
appellant would stand automatically terminated by virtue of s. 82 
thereof - Suit of the appellant was decreed and that of respondent 
No. 1 was dismissed - Held: The Revenue Estate where the property E 
in question was situated was duly declared 'Inam Estate' by 
Notification u/s 3 - It was proved that the appellant was in continuous 
possession of the land well before the notified date - Thus, appellant 
automatically became entitled to "Ryotwari Patta" - s. 82 of 
Endowments Act is inapplicable in the present case -
Andhra 
F 
Pradesh Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and 
Endowments Act, 1987 - s. 82. 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1. Consequent upon issuance of a notification under 
Section 3 of the Andhra Pradesh (Andhra Area) Estates (Abolition 
G 
and Conversion into Ryotwari), Act 1948 on 17.01.1959, the 
agricultural land in question in the revenue Estate of Sangam 
Agraharam village, was duly declared as an 'lnam Estate'. The 
l'ight of the appellant in the aforesaid 'Inam Estate' is dependent 
on the determination of the tenancy claim of the appellant prior 
H 
459 
460 
A 
B 
c 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(2016] 8 S.C.R. 
to 17.01.1959, i.e., the notified date. While decreeing the suit 
filed by the appellant, it was duly declared that the appellant was 
in possession of the laud in question. The appellant and his 
ancestors were also held to be in continuous possession of the 
land in question, well before the notified date - 17.01.1959. That 
being the position, in terms of Section 11 of the 1948 Act, the 
appellant automatically became entitled to a "ryotwari patta". 
[Para 14)(472-G-H; 473-A-B] 
2. Section 82 of the Andhra Pradesh Charitable and Hindu 
Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1987 is ina11plicable 
to the present controversy, because the appellant cannot be 
treated as a lease holder of agricultural land belonging to, or given, 
or endowed for purpose of any institution or endowment, 
subsisting on the date of commencement of the 1987 Act, namely, 
on 21.04.1987. The above position also emerges from the 
dismissal of the Suit filed by the Estate Officer, Devasthanam, 
D wherein the assertion made on behalf of respondent No. 1 that 
there existed a landlord tenant relationship with the appellant, 
Oil the basis of an alleged kadapa (rent-deed) dated 29.11.1970, 
was rejected. The aforesaid finding admittedly assumed finality 
between the parties. [Para 15]1473-E-F] 
E 
Muddada Chaya1111a v. Karnam Naraya11a, 1979 (3) 
SCR 201 : AIR 1979 SC 1320 - distinguished. 
3. It is not correct to say that the judgment and decree dated 
31.10.1977 passed in the suit filed by the appellant, was not 
binding on respondent No. 1 as civil courts jurisdiction was barred. 
F 
[Para 16]1473-II; 474-AJ 
G 
H 
State of Tamil Nadu v. RamalinKa SamiK(ll Madam, 1985 
(1) Suppl. SCR63 : (1985) 4 SCC J - relied on. 
4. It is also not correct to say that the claim raised by the 
appellant was barred by limitation. It was never in dispute between 
the parties, that the appellant was in possession of the land. Only 
that, respondent No. I claimed that the appellant was in possession 
of the land, as its tenant. The appellant had preferred Execution 
Application No. 18/2007 when respondent No. I allegedly tried 
to interfere with the possession of the agricultural laud in 
question, on 06.07.2005. There was no justification for 
DOKISEELA RAMULU v. SRI SANGAMESWARA SWAMY 
461 
VARU & ORS. 
determining limitation, with reference to the date when the decree 
A 
in Original Suit No.32/1974 was passed. The relevant elate for 
determini

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