POLLISETTI PULLAMMA AND ORS. versus KALLURI RAMESWARAMMA AND ORS.

Citation: [1990] SUPP. 2 S.C.R. 393 · Decided: 26-10-1990 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K.N. SAIKIA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

POLLISETTI PULLAMMA AND ORS. 
v. 
KALLURI RAMESWARAMMA AND ORS. 
OCTOBER 26. 1990 
[K.N. S<\.IKIA AND K. RAMASWAMY, JJ] 
A11dhra Pradesh !Andhra Area) Estutes (Aboluiun 11111' Cumw· 
1·iu11 intO Rvotw11ri) Act, 19411: Sections 3( /Oj(b)(i). /5-lnam V1//11gc 
-Hu11· deier111ined-Priv111e /11nds-.Proof' of personal ~·u/t11•atw11-· 
~i1ether necessarv. 
The appellants are the tenants and the respondents are the land· 
holders in respect of the tenanted agricultural lands of the hitherto 
inam estates. After the coming into force of the Andhra Pradesh 
(Andhra Area) Estates (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Art, 
I 948, the inam estates were abolished, the land stood vested in the 
Government free of all encumbrances, and the pre-existing rights, title 
and interest of erstwhile landholders ceased except to claim ryotwari 
patta. 
The respondents-landholders claimed that the lands, in ques-
tion, were either under their personal cultivation or they intended to 
resume those for private cultivation, and as such those were their pri-
vate lands and they were entitled to ryotwari pattas. The appellants--
tenants on the contrary claimed that those lands were neither under the 
personal cultivation of the landholders nor the landlords intended to 
resume those for personal cultivation, but were in possession of the 
tenants who were entitled to ryotwari pattas after the abolition of the 
estates. 
The Settlement Officer, after making inquiry under section 15 of 
the Estates Abolition Act, held that the landholders failed to establish 
that they were personally cultivating the lands or that they intenoed to 
resume the lands for personal cultivation, and as such rejected their 
claims. 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
The laudholders' appeals to the Estates Abolition Tribunal were 
allowed. The Tribunal held that the landholders were entitled to the 
grant of ryotwari pattas as the lands were private lands within the 
meaning of section 3 (lO)(b)(i) of the Andhra Pradesh (Andhra Area) 
Estates Land Act, 1908 and that the tenants were not entitled to ryotwari 
H 
pattas in respect of the same. 
'393 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
394 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[ 1990] Supp. 2 S.C.R. 
The appellants-tenant~ moved writ petitions before the High 
Court. The learned Single Judge observed that it was common ground 
before the Subordinate Tribunal, as well as before him, that the nature 
of the lands at the inception, whether ryoti or private, was not known; 
that the burden of establishing that the lands were private lands was on 
the landholders; and that it was also common gronnd before him that 
apart from the fact that there were occasional changes of tenants, and 
the lands \Vere sometimes leased under short-term leases, there were no 
other circumstances indicating that the landholders intended to resume 
cultivation of lhe lands. The. learned Single Judge held that after the 
pronouncement of this Court in Chidambaram Chettiar v. Santhanara-
111aswamy Odayar, [1968] 2 SCR 764 the decision of the Full Bench of 
the Madras High Court in Periannan v. Amman Ko vii, AIR 1952 Mad. 
323 (F .B.) could no longer be considered good law, and further that the 
decision in Jagdeesam Pillai v • .Kuppamma/, ILR 1946 Mad. 687 and in 
Perish Priest of Narayar v. 71zingaraja Swami Devasthanam, App. Nos. 
176-178 and 493 of 1946, once more held the field. It was also observed 
that since in all the cases the only mode of proof attempted by the 
landholders was the grant of short-term leases and change of tenants 
and rent, it must be held that the lands were not established to be 
private lands and that no attempt was made to prove personal cnltiva-
tion or any intention to resume personal cultivation. 
The Division Bench, in writ appeals filed by the landholders, held 
that, in the first place, the observations of this Court in Chidambaram's 
case were in accord with the rule in Periannan's case, and secondly, 
even if some of the dicta in the judgment of this Court in Chidambaram 
suggested a contrary principle, the effect of the entire observations did 
not support the contention that Periannan's case had been impliedly 
overruled by this Court. 
.Before this Court, it was inter alia contended on behalf of the 
appellants-tenants (i) that the learnd Single Judge having found as fact 
that the landholders had failed to establish that the lands were their 
private lands as these were neither under their personal cultivation nor 
they were intended If! be resumed

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