LexPINNINTI KISTAMMA AND ORS. versus DUWADA PARSURAM CHOWDARY & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2010] 1 S.C.R. 297 PINNINTI KISTAMMAAND ORS. V. DUWADA PARSURAM CHOWDARY & ORS. (Civil Appeal Nos. 6900-6906 of 2001) JANUARY 8, 2010 [TARUN CHATTERJEE AND HARJIT SINGH BEDI, JJ.] · Andhra Pradesh Record of Rights in Land Act, 1971: A B Revenue authorities' order declaring cultivatory c possession of tenants - HELD: High Court has rightly held that the order of Tehsildar having achieved status of. finality cannot be upset. by civil court and that the landlords had failed to prove their possession and cultivation in respect of suit land to the extent of 19. 80 acres. D Code of Civil Procedure, 1908: s.114 and Or. 47, r.1 - Review - Clarification by High Court of its judgment passed in second appeals - HELD: High Court in the original judgment in second appeals had E considered both the batches of appeals arising out of the suits of tenants and also cross suits of landlords - That apart, tenants had filed suits limiting their claim to the extent of 19.80 acres of land - Therefore, High Court was justified in reviewing the judgment, allowing the second appeals of F tenants only to the extent of 19.80 acres of land - There is no ground for interference in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 136 of the Constitution of India - Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 136. The appellants in CA Nos. 6900-6906 of 2001 filed G suits claiming tenancy rights in respect of 19.80 acres of land and praying for permanent injunction restraining the respondents(landlords) from interfering with their 297 H 298 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2010] 1 S.C.R. A possession over the said land. The landlords filed cross- suits praying for injunction over 181 acres of land which also included the aforementioned 19.80 acres of land. The tenants also made complaint to Revenue authorities alleging manipulation of revenue records by the B landlords, whereupon the Tehsildar conducted inquiry and by order dated 10.9.1984 declared the appellant- tenants and others as cultivatory tenants. The said order was affirmed by the Collector and the Commissioner of Land Revenue. The suits filed by the tenants were c decreed. By a separate judgment the cross-suits filed by the landlords were dismissed. The landlords preferred two sets of appeals - one led by A.S. No. 12 of 1996 from the suits of landlords and the other led by A.S. No. 11 of 1996 from the suits of tenants. The first appellate court, by two 0 separate judgments allowed both the sets of appeals. The tenants challenged both the judgments in two sets of second appeals before the High Court, which assumed that all the appeals were filed against a common judgment in A.S. No. 12 of 1996 and the batch. The High Court granted a decree for permanent injunction in E favour of the tenants. Thereupon, the landlords filed a review petition, which was allowed by the High Court clarifying its judgment that the appeals of tenants as regards the 19.80 acres stood allowed, and landlords' appeals to that extent stood dismissed and their other F batch appeals partly allowed. Aggrieved, the tenants as also the landlords filed the appeals. Dismissing both the sets of appeals, the Court HELD: 1. The High Court granted a decree for G permanent injunction in favour of the tenants mainly on the basis that the tenants were in possession and cultivation of the lands in dispute and after considering the fact the landlords had failed to prove their possession and cultivation in respect of the lands in question by H PINNINTI KISTAMMA AND ORS. v. DUWADA 299 PARSURAM CHOWDARY producing reliable and material evidence before the court. A In this regard the High Court rightly accepted the findings of the Tehsildar which had achieved the status of finality. Such being the position, there is no merit in these appeals so far as the Landlords/appellants are concerned. [Para 16 and 19] [310-A-B-C-D] B Abdulla Bin Ali v. Ga/appa, AIR 1985 SC 577, State of Tamil Nadu v. Ramalinga Samigal Nadam, AIR 1986 SC 794; Sangubhotla Venkataramaiah v. Kallu Venkataswamy AIR 1976 AP 402, referred to. 2. So far as the order of the High Court in the review petition and batch is concerned, the High Court in the original judgment in the second appeals had considered c not only the second appeal being A.S.No.12 of 1996 and batch but also the second appeal filed against A.S.No.11 D of 1996 and batch. That apart, the tenants/respondents filed their suits for permanent
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.