KATIKARA CHINTAMANI DORA & ORS. versus GUNTREDDI ANNAMNAIDU & ORS.

Citation: [1974] 2 S.C.R. 655 · Decided: 11-12-1973 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: D.G. PALEKAR · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 2 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

'f- ' 
655 
A 
KATIKARA CHINTAMANI DORA & ORS. 
P. 
GUNTREDDI ANNAMNAIDU & ORS. 
December 11~ 1973. 
B 
(0, G. PALEKAR, V, R. KR!SHl'\A !YER AND R. S. SARKARIA, JJ.] 
c 
D 
E 
Madras Estates (A bolltlo11 and Conversion Into Ryotwarl) 
Act 
1948-.1. 
9(1)-Jurlsdlctlo11 of th• Stttl•ment Of/im and Civil Court-Wliethtr finding 
of Selllement Of!im could b• qumlo11•d in a Clvll Court-Effect of A·me11dln1 
Act on pending act/0111, 
The Settlement Officer under the Madras Estates (Abolition· and Conversion 
into Ryotwari) Act, 1948 s110 motu made an inquiry as to whether a parti• 
cular villa*e notified by the State Government was an estate or not within the 
contemplation of s. 9(2) of the Act and held that it was not an "inam eslate" 
within the meaning of s. 2(7) of the Abolition Act b'ut that the villaae become 
an estate by virtue of Madras Estates Land (3rd Amendment) Act, 1936.· The 
appellants unsuccessfully appealed to the Estate Abolition Tribunal. The appel· 
lant then instituted a suit (O.S. 47 of 1953) against the State Government for 
a declaration that the village was not an ''estate" under s. 3(2)(d) of the 
Madras Estates Land Act. 1908 and consequently Madras Estate (Reduction 
of Rent) A'ct, 1947 and the Abolition Act were not applicable ·to it. The 
trial court decreed the suit. The State preferred an appeal. 
During the pen· 
dency of the appeal the appellant filed a suit (0.S. No. 101 of 1954) agoinst 
the respondents for recovery of certain amount as rent or damages in respect 
of lands cultivated by them in the village in dispute. The respondents con· 
tended that the village was an estate within the meaning of the Act and that 
it had been so held by the Settlement Officer. 
Ultimately both the parties. 
filed a joint memo on 26th March, 1958 that they would abide by the decision 
of the High Court or the Supreme Court in the appeal or revision arising. out 
of the suit (O.S, 47/53) on the question whether the village was or-Was not 
an "estate'' ur:der s. 3(2)(d) of the Madras Estates Land Act. 
The 
Hi~h 
Court (in A.S. No. 668 of 1954 which was an appeal arising out of o.s~ 47 
of 1953) confirmed the decree of the trial court that the :village in dispute was 
not an 'estate'. The State did not appeal, with the result that the High Court's 
decision became final and the decree dated 28th March, 1958 became effec· 
tive. 
F 
Against the decree of 28th March, 1958 the· appellants preferred an appeat. 
(A.S. 239 of 1961) to the High Court. The appeal related only to the extent 
of the land in the possession of the respondents and the quantum of rent or 
damages. The appellants• claim was, that the entire land ~as under cul!ivation 
of the respondents and so the tower court was wrong 1n not decreeing the 
appellants' claim for rent or damages i1? toto. 
The respondents raised :1 rreli~ 
minary objection at the time of hearing of the appeal that the ~uit itsel was 
incompelent as the Civil Court had no jurisdiction to decide whether the suit 
G 
village was an estate or not and, therefore, any dCcision given by the High 
Court would not bind the parties and the decree in O.S. 101 of 1954 would 
be without iuri-;diction rendering it null and void and that the Settlement Officer 
was the competent authority to decide the tenure of the village and his deci· 
sion had be·come final in view of the introduction .of s. 9A by Act 20 of 1960. 
The High Court upheld the preliminary otijection of the 
re~pondent!' and 
rejected the contentions of the appellants that since s. 9 A was inserted by an 
amendment which came into force on 23rd June, 1960, it could not affect the 
compromise decree of the court passed on March 28, 1958 or the decree of 
H 
the High Court by which both the parties agreed to abide by the decision of tbe-
High Court or the Supreme Court in appeal or revision arising out of O.S. 
47 of 1953. The High Court held that the Civil Court was not the forum for 
the suit a~ framed by the a.ppella.nts and the questions raised 
in 
the 
suit 
~. 
2-L748SupCf/74 
656 
SUPREME COURT REPCJKTS 
(1974] 2 s.C.R, 
including tbe claim for arrears of rent or damages, were outside the jurisdic-
A 
tion of the Civil Court, and so dismissed the appeal. 
Allowing the appeal. 
HELD : I (a) There is no doubt that the question was within the compet-
ence of the Civil Court. 
Under the Abolition Act, as it stood at the material 
date, the inquiry of the Settlement Officer could legitimately be confined to the 
ascer

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