LexODURU CHENCHULAKSHMAMMA AND ANR. versus DUVVURU SUBRAMANYA REDDY
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
.a ODURU CHENCHULAKSHMAMMA AND ANR. v. DUVVURU SUBRAMANY A REDDY Octo~er 23, 1979 [N. L. UNTWALIA AND A. D. KOSHAL,JJ.] Madras Estates (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1948- Scope of section 56 of the Act-Determina~ion of dispute betweetc the rival ,_claimants 10 ryotwari patta-Civil Court jurisdiction is barred. By virtue of the provisions of Section 53 of the Andina State Ac~ 1953, the district 0f Chittoor was made part of Andhra State but continued to be governed by all the laws which were in force in the State of Madras immediately before the !st of October 1953. One P. ~. Reddy, Challamma, sister's daughter of the rospondent-plaintiff and her son Srinivasalu Reddy were the owners of the land in dispute v.·hich are situated in Chittoor district. Some of the lands were '1) sold by Challamma and Srinivasalu Reddy and the rest by P. K. Reddy and . Srinivasalu Reddy by means of two sale deeds dated the 25th September 1947 (Exhibits A-8 and A-9 respectively) in favour of Pocha Subba Reddy who was Chal!amma's brother and maternal. uncle of Srinivasalu Reddy. Although both the sale deeds were supported by valid consideiation, p05Session was not delivered to the vendee under either of them and continued to be with Challamrna. ;e Consequent upon the promulgation of the Madras Estates (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1948, a dispute arose between Challamma and Pocha Subba Reddy as to who of them was entitled to the patta under the Act in respe<:t of the lands covered by Exhibits A-8 and A-9. Th~ Additional Assistant Settlement Officer resolved the dispute by means of an atder dated 14th September 1957 holding that Challamma was entitled to the patta on the ground that she had throughout been in possession of the lands in question to the exclusion of Pocha Subba Redd;'. On the same date Pocha Subba Reddy sold the lands in dispute by means of a registered sale deed (Exhibit A·7) to Subramany~ Reddy who< was the maternal uncle o~ both Challamma and Pocha Subba Reddy and in the year 1960; Subramanya Redoly filed a suit (0.S. 169 /60) claiming declaration of title thereto and possession thereof. The Trial Court declared the suit over-ruling the objection that the Civil Court had no jurisdiction to set aside the decision of the Settlement Officer under the 1948 Madr&S Act. The Additional District Judge of Cbittoor, in appeal by the legal representatives of Challamma and Srinivasalu Reddy (who had died during the pend ency of the suit) reversed the decree of the Trial Court and dismissed the suit, holding that the rights of the plaintiff und<!l' Ex. A-7 were dislodged by the grant of a pdtta to Cha!lamma. In second appeal, the High Conrt was of the view that it was competent to a Civil Court to adjudicate upon the title of the parties notwithstanding the grant of a patta under the Act to one of th~m, accepted the appc3.l and )·-- .. • >:; • CHENCFIULAKSHMAMMA v. D. SUBRAMANYA (Koshal, !.) 1007 1!fanted the plaintiff the relief claimed by him. Hence the appeal by special A Oieave. Allowing the appeal, the Court lJELD : J. Civil Courts have no jurisdiction to entertain a suit by reason of the provisions of section 56 of the Madras Estates (Abolition and Coiiver- ·.sion into Ryotwari) Act 1948. The order of the Additional Settlement Officer dated the 14th September 1957 is final and no: liable to be questioned in any ·court of law in so far as the dispute between the rival claimants to the ryot- ·W<lri patta is concerned. [1015 D-EJ 2. Sub-section 2 of the Section 56 of ·the 1948 Madras Act categorically ·<leclarcs that the decision of the Tribunal deciding the appeal shall be final and not liable to be questioned in any court of law, in so far as it relates to . any of the matters covered by sul>-section ( 1). It goes without saying that if no appeal is filed, a similar finality shall attach to the decision of the ·Seulemertt Officer. One o,f such matters is covered by clause (c) of sub- . section ( 1) and embraces the determination of the question as to who the lawful ryot in respect of any holding is. Questions which a Settlement Officer may be called upon to decide under the said clause (c) woold certainly include -such as may have resulted from a dispute between two or more persons as to who of thi:m is the lawful ryot; and once a dispute of that type has been ad- judicated upon by the Settlement Officer, his decision becom
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.