RENTALA LATCHAIAH & ORS. versus CHIMMAPUDI SUBRAHMANYAM

Citation: [1967] 3 S.C.R. 712 · Decided: 19-04-1967 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K.N. WANCHOO · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 2 judgment(s) · cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

RENTALA LATCHAIAH & ORS. 
·v. 
cmMMAPUDI SUBRAHMANYAM 
April 19, 1967 
IK. N. WANCHOO, C.J., V. BHARGAVA AND G. K. MITTER, JJ.J 
B 
Hyderabad Tenancy & Agricultural Lands Act, 1950, ss. 2(13) a11d 
5-Persons put Into PO!sesslon of land by 
trespasser-Whether 'asami 
s/ilkml' under s. 2(13)-Whether can claim benefit of s. S as lawful cu/ti• 
valors of the land, 
R died in 1941 leaving certain landed properties. His adopted son 
filed a suit for a declaration in· favour of his adoption a~ainst R's widow 
C 
• 
as defendant. During the pendency of the suit the widow was put in 
·:.,, 
possession of'.the lands by the revenue authorities. The plaintiff added a 
r 
prayer of possession to bis plaint. The court served the widow with an 
injunction not to deal with the lands in any way during the pendency 
<>f the suit. In 1951 the suit was decreed in favour of the adopted son 
but nevertheless in 1952 the widow leased the lands to the appellants. 
In execution of the decree of the court possession of the lands was given 
in 1954 to the adopted son and the appellants were ejected. The appel-
D 
Jan ts thereupon filed a claim under s. 32( 1) of the Hyderabad Tenancy 
.& Agricultural Lands Act, 1950 to be put back in possession of the lands 
<>n the plea tliat they had been lawfully cultivating the land as tenants. 
The Tehsildat' and the Collec!Or held in their favour but the High Court 
in revision decided against them. They came to this CQ_urt by special 
leave. 
HELD : The appellants were inducted on the land by R's widow after 
.I 
the decree in the suit for declaration of title and possession in favour 
• 
<>f the adopted son. After the passing of the decree the possession of 
the widow could only be that of a trespasser and it was not open to her 
to create any right in the land in favour of anybody. 
The appellants 
could not get the benefit of s. 5 of the Act as they could not be said to 
<:, 
be lawfully cultivating the land. They could not call in aid the definition 
of 'asami shikmi' in s. 2(13) of the Act. When the person who induct-
F 
ed the tenants-Ori the land was found to be a trespasser on the date of 
the induction, the tenants could not continue to have a right to be on 
the land against the will of the true owner. [714 G-H; 715 A-C; 719 G] 
Dahya Lal v. Rasul Mohammed Abdul Hakim, 
[1963] 3 S.C.R. 1, 
Mo/1ima Chunder Shafi•' v. Hazari Pramanik, I.L.R. 17 Calcutta 45 and 
Binad Lal Pakrashi' v. Kalli Pramanik, I.L.R. 20 Calcutta 708, distin-
_-guished. 
C1v1L APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 611 of 
1964. 
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated 
September 10, 1962 of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in 
C.R.P. No. 1128 of 1959. 
A. V. Rangam, for the appellants. 
P. Ram Reddy, Triyambak Rao Deshmukh and R. Vasutlev 
Pillai, for the respondent. 
G 
H 
LATCHAIAH v. SUBRAMANIAM (Mitter, J.) 
'13 
A 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
B 
c 
D 
Mitter, J, 
This is an appeal by special leave, from a judgment 
in a batch of civil revision petitions 
decided_ by the 
Andhra 
Pradesh High Court in September, 1962. 
Th.~ facts necessary for the disposal of this appeal are as 
follows. 
One Ramalingayya died in the year 1941 
possessed 
of considerable properties includin~ the lands which formed the 
subject matter of the above menlloned civil revision petitions. 
Before his death, he had adop'.ed the petitioner before the High 
Court one Chimmapudi Subrahman¥am, tl.e respondent before 
this Court. 
He came into possession of the l'roperties of his 
adoptive father after the latter's death. ·Ramahngayya's widow 
howev.~r raised a dispute about the facturn and validity of the 
adoption and claimed the properties as the heir of her husband. 
Subrahmanyam filed a suit in the court of the Dis'.rict Munsif, 
Khanunam for a declaration that he was the adopted son of 
Ramalingayya. 
Pending the disposal of the 
suit, 
however, 
Ramalingayya's widow. who was the. 4th respondent in C.R.P. 
No. 36 of 1952 before the High Court, claimed, to have her 
name registered in the register maintained under the Hyderabad 
Land Revenue Act of 1317 F. by virtue of the provisions of 
s. 59 of that Act. 
The land revenue authorities registered the 
widow Kaveramma as pattedar and dispossed the adopted son 
of all the lands putting Kaveramma in possession thereof. 
The 
E . adopted son amended his plaint by including a prayer for pos- . 
session. 
During the pendency of the suit, the widow Kave-
ramma was pr

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