SH. LOKRAJ AND ORS. versus KISHAN LAL AND ORS.

Citation: [1995] 1 S.C.R. 193 · Decided: 11-01-1995 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K. RAMASWAMY, SUJATA V. MANOHAR · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
cites 3 · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

SH. LOKRAJ AND ORS. 
v. 
KISHAN LAL AND ORS. 
JANUARY 11, 1995 
[K. RAMASWAMY AND MRS. SUJATA V. MANOHAR, JJ.] 
Andhra Pradesh (Telengana Area) Abolition of Inams Act, 1955 as 
amended in 1967-Section 3-Abolition and vesting of Inams lands-Suit for 
partitiott-Whether maintainable, after estate was abolishecJ-Held, No. 
Plaintiff filed a civil suit for partition of the plaint schedule proper-
A 
B 
c 
ties and for 1/6th share therein. The properties were found to be loam 
lands as per the finding of the High Court. However, the division bench 
held that the suit for partition was maintainable even though lnam had 
been abolished under the Andhra Pradesh (Telengana Area) Abolition of 
Inams Act, 1955, and the lands stood vested in the State. Hence this appeal. D 
The respondent plaintiff contended that the right to claim partition had 
not been lost, though loam bad been abolished. 
The question raised, therefore, was whether the civil suit for parti-
tion was maintainable, after the estate was abolished. 
E 
Allowing the appeal, this Court 
HELD : 1.1. The Andhra Pradesh (Telengana Area) Abolition of 
loams Act, 1955, a complete Code, abolished the loam, vested the land in 
the government and conferred rights on the persons in occupation F 
enumerated, subject to the right of appeal. The Act abolished existing rights 
and created new rights. Consequent to the abolition the pre-existing right, 
title and interest of the lnamdar or any person having occupation of the 
loam lands stood divested and vested the same in the State until regrant 
was made. The inamdar, thereby lost the pre-existing right, title and interest G 
in the land. The right to partition itself also has been lost by the statutory 
operation unless regrant is made. Therefore, the civil suit for the partition 
was not maintainable, after the estate was abolished. [195-G-H, 196-A-BJ 
B.P. Narain Singh v. S. Mukherjee, [1971] 3 SCR 639; S.P. Shah v. 
B.N. Singh, [1969] 3 SCR 908; Chayanna v. K. Nannayana, [1979] 3 SCC H 
193 
194 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1995) 1 S.C.R. 
A 42 and Chenclmlakshamma v. Subramanya Reddy, (1980] 1 SCR 1006, 
relied on. 
Sheetal Singh v. Mahmood Shariff, (1984) 1 Andhra Weekly Reporter 
406; Affirmed. 
B 
Govind Reddy v. Lakshminarayan Reddy, (1959) 1 Andhra Weekly 
c 
Reporter; K Babgonda Patil v. B.K Patil, (1989] Supp. 1 SCC 246 and S. T. 
Karaban v. P.H. Karaban, (1994) 4 SCALE 750, distinguished. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 1400 of 
1986. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 22.1.86 of the Andhra Pradesh 
High Court in C.R.P. No. 1215of1977. 
S.R. Setia for the Appellants. 
D 
K. Madhava Reddy, S.V. Deshpande and Pramit Saxena for the 
E 
F 
Respondent Nos. 1-4. 
K. Ram Kumar for the Respondent Nos. 7-9. 
The following Order of the Court was delivered : 
This appeal by special leave arises from the division bench judgment 
dated January 22, 1986 made in CRP No. 1215/77 of the High Court of 
Andhra Pradesh. The respondent-plaintiff laid the suit - O.S. No. 59 of 
1968 in the Court of the Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad for 
partition of the plaint schedule properties and for l/6th share therein. We 
are concerned in this appeal with the properties mentioned in 'B' schedule 
of the plaint. It consists of 8 items, of which item 5 relates to lands bearing 
Survey Nos. 174, 175, 179, 193 and 205 admeasuring 20 acres 21 gunthas 
situated in Attapur village. The said land was acquired by the government 
to establish Zoo. The compensation was determined in O.P. No. 35/63 by 
G the First Addi. Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad. The rest of the proper-
ties are now found to be Inam lands as per the finding of the High Court: 
"Thus, there does not appear to be any controversy between the 
parties on the question whether the plaint 'B' schedule properties 
are loam lands or not. Therefore, it becomes an admitted fact that 
H 
the plaiti.t B schedule lands are loam lands.". 
~· 
--
·~ 
LOK RAJ v. KISHAN LAL 
195 
On those admitted facts, the Division Bench proceeded to consider A 
whether the suit for partition is maintainable. Section 3 of the Andhra 
Pradesh (Telengana Area) Abolition of lnams Act, 1955, as amended in 
1967, (for short 'the Act') deals with the abolition and vesting of the lnam 
Lands. Section 3(1) is relevant, which reads thus : 
"Abolition and vesting of inams and the consequences thereof : 
(1) Notwithstanding to the contrary contained in any usage, settle-
ment, contract, grant, sanad
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.