SARASWATI AND ORS. versus LACHANNA (DEAD) THROUGH LRS.

Citation: [1993] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 927 · Decided: 08-12-1993 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: R.M. SAHAI · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

-. 
SARASWATI AND ORS. 
v. 
LACHANNA (DEAD) THROUGH LRS. 
DECEMBER 8, 1993 
[R.M. SAHAI, N.P. SINGH AND S.P. BHARUCHA, JJ.) 
A>idhra Pradesh (Telangana A7ea) Tenancy and Agricultural Lands 
Act, 1950-Section 9~ar ofjurisdiction-Suit for redemption of mortgage--
Jurisdiction of civil court-Whether b<med-Held, no. 
Section 103 (2)-Suit for redemption-Mortgage executed when Preven-
tion of Agricultural Land Alienation Act in f orce--Repeal-Rights or 
privileges accured under the Act repealed saved-Whether proce(!dings could 
be entertained by Tahsildar or Talukt:laHleld, No. 
A 
B 
c 
Plaintiff filed suit for redemption of the suit property alleging tliat - D 
the suit property had been mortgaged in favour of the father of the original 
defendant and possession had not been delivered to him. 
The defendants pleaded that the Civil Court had no jurisdiction to 
try the suit. However the suit was decreed by the trial court holding that E 
the plaintiff had right to redeem the mortgage, and the civil court had 
jurisdiction to entertain the suit. On appeal, it was held that the suit was 
not barred by section 99 section of the Andhra Pradesh(Telangana Area) 
Tenancy and Agricultural La!lds Act, 1950. The second appeal filed before 
the High Court was also dismissed. Hence· this appeal. 
F 
The appellants urged that in view of section 99 of the Act, which 
barred the jurisdiction of the Civil Court with regard to certain proceed-
ing, the suit for redemption of the mortgage could not have been enter-
tained by the Court and the dispute should have been left to be determined 
in accordance with the provisions of the said Act. It was pointed out that 
in view of Section 8(2) of the Prevention Qf Agricultural Land Alienation - G 
Act, even a mortgagor had to approach the_ Talukdar for redemption of 
mortgage and the Civil Court had not jurisdiction to entertain the suit. 
The appellants alleged that even if, there was no provision under\the 
Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, to entertain a suit relating to _ 
redemption of the mortgage, in view of section 103 which had repealed the H 
927 
--
928 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1993) SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 
A 
Prevention of Agricultural Land Alienation Act, a proceeding for redemp-
tion of a mortgage which had been executed when the Prevention of 
Agricultural Land Alienation Act was in force, could be entertained only 
by the Tahsildar or Talukdar. 
B 
Dismissing the appeal, this court 
HELD : 1.1. Where a particular Act creates a right and also provides 
a forum for enforcement of such right and bars the jurisdiction of the Civil 
Court then ouster of the Civil Court jurisdiction bas to be upheld. But 
where the statute neither creates the right in question nor provides any 
C remedy or having created any righ! or liability no forum for adjudication 
of any dispute arising out of such right or liability is provided, the ouster 
of the Civil Court's jurisdiction is not to be easily inferred. (932-H, 933-A] 
D 
Shiv Kumar Chadha v.Municipal Corporation of Delhi, (1993) 3 SCC 
161, relied on. 
1.2. In the instant case, in the Andbra Pradesh (Telangana Area) 
Tena!1cy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1950, neither there was any provision 
for seeking permission of any revenue authority before execution of an 
usufructuary mortgage nor a forum had been provided for adjudication of 
E 
a dispute relating to any usufructuary mortgage. If none of the provisions 
of the Act, required that a proceeding for redemption of usufructuary 
mortgage was to be entertained by Tahsildar only, the bar of section 99 
·could not operate and the jurisdiction of the Civil Court should not be 
deemed to have been ousted in respect of such suit •. (933-C-D] 
F 
Abdulla Bin Ali v. Galappa, (1985) 2 SCC 54, relied on. 
G 
1.3. Sub-Section (2) of Section 103 of the Act, inspite of the repeal of 
the prevention of Agricultural Land Alienation Act, protects the right or 
privilege accrued under Act so repealed. (933-G] 
Gollapalli Lingam v. Vadla Mallamma, (1959) 2 Andbra Weekly 
Reporter 497 and Rangaraj Gangaram v. Government of Andhra Pradesh, 
(1967) 1 Andbra Weekly reporter ll, affirmed. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 1758 of 
fl. 1980. 
-
--
SARASWATiv. LACHANNA[NP. SINGH,J.) 
929 
From the Judgment and Order dated 10. a.7k of the Andhra Pradesh A 
High Court in S.A. No. 314 of 1977. 
A.D.N. Rao, and A Subba Rao for the Appellants. 
Subodh Markandeya for the Respondent. 
The Judgment of the Court was de

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