SMT. KAZI NAJMUNISSA BEGUM versus YUSUF KHAN & ORS.

Citation: [1989] SUPP. 1 S.C.R. 217 · Decided: 21-09-1989 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: M.M. DUTT · Disposal: Disposed off

cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

SMT. KAZI NAJMUNISSA BEGUM 
A 
v. 
YUSUF KHAN & ORS. 
SEPTEMBER 21, 1989 
[MURARI MOHAN DUTT AND K.N. SAIKIA, JJ:J 
B 
Hyderabad Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1950: Sections 
2(r), (u), (v), 31, 32, 34-37, 87-95-Exc/usive jurisdiction of the 
Tenancy Authorities under the Act-Competent Authority to decide 
issue on merits. 
The appellant/plaintiff instituted a suit for declaration of title, 
possession and mesne profits of the suit property. The respondents/ 
defendants 1 and 2 resisted the suit mainly on the ground that they were 
tenants of one Sirajuddin who had allegedly acquired title to the suit 
property on the basis of a gift in favour of his wife. The Trial Court 
decreed the suit holding that Sirajuddin had no right or title and that 
the defendants were trespassers. The High Court rejected the defen-
dants' appeal and the special leave therefrom was rejected by this 
Court. 
The decree-bolder moved an Execution Petition for possession. 
The respondents objected to the execution on the ground that they were 
tenants and could not, therefore, be dispossessed in execution of the 
decree of the Civil Court. The objection was rejected and the High 
Court rejected the appeal therefrom. 
Thereafter, when the Execution Petition was set down for pro-
ceeding further, once again the respondents raised the plea of tenancy, 
and this time the Executing Court raised an issue of tenancy and refer· 
red the same to the Tenancy Court for determination. The appellant 
appealed to the High Court. The High Court observed that there could 
be no question of creation of tenancy interest by those who themselves 
had no title; that the judgment debtors' earlier objection to execution 
on the ground of their claim of tenancy was also rejected; and it was not 
open to the judgment debtors to once again raise an issue of tenancy 
before the Executing Court which ought to have rejected the same 
contention. Even so, the High Court having noted that judgment debtor 
No. 2 had already filed an independent proceeding under the Hydera-
bad Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1950 for declaration of bis 
tenancy rights observed that, if that was so, then the Competent 
217 
0 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
A 
218 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[ 1989] Supp. 1 S.C.R. 
Authority under the Tenancy Act would have to decide the issue on its 
own merits and in accordance with law irrespective of and regardless of 
all observations, if any, touching upon such a claim of tenancy in the 
civil proceedings between the parties. The High Court also observed 
that the question of tenancy was not directly in issue between the parties 
in the civil proceedings and the judgment debtor No. 2 was not debar-
red from instituting proceedings under the Tenancy Act before the 
Competent Authority. The High court allowed the revision petition, set 
aside the order of the Executing Court referring the issue of tenancy, 
and directed the Executing Court to proceed further with the Execution 
Petition. 
(C 
Before this Court it was contended that the High Court committed 
a serious error while setting aside the order of the Executing Court 
referring the issue of tenancy to the Tehsildar, at the same time allow-
ing the proceedings under the Tenancy Act before the Tehsildar pro-
ceed in the face of the fact that the judgment debtors' objection on the 
basis of their tenancy was already rejected by the Executing Court, and 
D in holding that the competent authority should decide the issue of 
tenancy in accordance with law irrespective of and re~ardless of all 
observations made in the suit and the appeal. 
Disposing of the appeal, this Court, 
E 
HELD: ( 1) The Tenancy Act had amended the law regulating the 
relations of land-holders and tenants of agricultural land and the alie-
nation ofsuch land. [221B] 
(2) Thou2h it could he said that when the person who inducted 
the tenants on the land was found to be a trespasser on the date of the 
f 
induction, the tenants could not continue to have a right to be on the 
land against the will of the true owner, yet, taking into consideration 
the exclusive nature of jurisdiction of the Tenancy authorities under the 
Tenancy Act, and the fact that the appellant has already preferred 
an appeal from the order of the competent authority, the Court was 
not inclined to interfere with the order of the High Court appealed 
(ii against. l222D-E] 
Latchaiah v. Subrahmanyam, [1967] 3 SCR 712, referred to. 
(3) It will now be open to the appella

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