ODURU CHENCHULAKSHMAMMA & Anr. v. DUVVURU SUBRAMANY A REDDY

KOSHAL, J.-The facts giving ri&e to this appeal by special leave are concluded by ccncurrent findings of fact arrived at by the trial court and the first appellate court and may be briefly stated here with refe- rence to the following pedigree-table : .>--- Krishna Reddy I I I . Subramanyam Reddy (plaintiff) Daughther (name not known) - Veiikatarama Reddy I Pocha Sobba Reddy (defendant No. 6) Krishna Reddy = ,1 I Chal!amma (defendant No. n SrinivasuL Reddy (defendant No. 2) ·- ., Defendants Nos. 1 and 2 and one P. K. Reddy were the owners of the lands in dispute which .are situated in village Makhamambavilasam forming part of Chittoor district. Som~ of the lands were sold by defendants Nos. I and 2 and the rest by P. K. Reddy and defendant No. 2 by means of two sale deeds dated the. 25th of September, 1947 (exhibits A-8 and A-9 respectively) in favour of defendant No. 6 who was the brother of defendant No. 1 and therefore the maternal uncle of defendant No. 2. Although both the sale deeds were supported by valid consideration, possession was not delivered to the vendee under either of them and continued to be with defendant No. 1 .. In 1948 was promulgated the Madras Estates (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act (hereinafter called the 'Madras Act') section 3 of which reads thus : "3. With effect on and from the notified date and save as otherwise express! y provided in this Act- (a) the Madras Estates Land (Reduction of Rent) Act, 1947 (Madras Act XXX of 1947) in so far as it relates to matters other than the reduction of rents and the collection of arrears of rent and the Madras Permanent Settlement Regulation, 1802 (Madras Regulation XXV of- 1802) , the Madras Estates Land Act, 1908 ·(Madras Act I of 1908), y B D E F B , CHENCHULAKSHMAMMA v. D. SUllRAMANYA (Koshal, !.) 1'009 and all other enactments ~applicable ,to the estate as such shall be deemed to have been repealed in their application to the estate; (b) the e'ntire estate (including all communal porambokes; other non-ryoti lands; waste lands; lands; pasture · '' lands, Ianka lands, forests; mines and minerals; quarries; · rivers and streams; tanks and irrigation works; fisheries and ferries), shall stand transferred to the Government and vest in them, free of all encumbrances and the Madras Revenue Recovery Act, 1864, the Madras Irrigation Cess Act, 1865, and all other enactments applicable to ryotwari areas shall apply to the estate; (c) aillrights and interests created in or over the estate before the notified date by the principal or any other land holder, shall as against the Government cease and determine; (d) the Government may, after removing any obstruc- . tion that may be offered, forthwith take possession of the estate, and all accounts, registers, pattas, muchilikas, maps, plans and other documents relating to the estate which the Government may require for the administration thereof; \. R c D Provided that the Government shall not dispossess any person of any land in the estate in respect of which consider that he is prima facie entitled to a ryotwari patta- 'E (i) if such person is a ryot, pending the decision of the Settlement Officer as to whether he is actually entitled to snch patta; (ii) if. such person is a landholder, pending the decision of the Settlement Officer and the Tribunal on appeal, if any, to it, as to whether he is actually entitled such patta; • ,, ( e) the principal or any other landholder and any other person, whose rights stand transferred under clanse (b) pr cease and determine nnder clause ( c), shall be entitled only to such rights and privileges as are recognized or con- .. ferred on him by or under this Act; (f) the relationship of landholder and ryot, shall, between them, be extingulshed; (g) any rights and privileges which may have accrued . · in the estate, to any person before the notified -date against 1&-743SCil79 ' . F ' G e I ~ ~ ~ • • )..,_ ·- ,.... / \, i r I ~ 1-.: I A a 1019 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1980] 1 S.C.'R. the principal or any other landholder thereof, shall cease and determine, and shall not be enforceable against Government or such landholder, and every such person shall be entitled only to such rights and privileges as are recognized or conferred on him by or under this Act." The term 'estate' is defined in elause (3) of section 2 of Madras Act as meaning a zamindari or an under-tenure or an .:state. th.e i111un Section 11 declares that every ryot in an estate would be entitled to a ryotwari patta in respect of all ryoti and lanka lands in his occu- C pation before the "notified" date which meant, under clause (10) of section 2, the date appointed by a notification issued by tbe Govern ment. Sections 12 to 15 deal with the determination of zamindari, inam and under-tcnur\' estates in which the 'landholder is declared to be entitled to a ryotwari patta. D E I' G H On the 1st of October, 1953, came into being the State of Andhra through an Act of Parliament known as the Andhra State Act, by virtue of section 3 contained in Part II of which the entire Chittoor District forming part of the State of Madras prior to the said date was transferred, along with other areas, to the State of Andhra. Section 53. of the Act last mentioned provided as follows : "53. The provisions of Part II sliall not be deemed have effected any change in the territories to which any law in force immediately before the appointed day extends or applies, and territorial references in any such law tli:e 'Slate of Madras or of Mysore shall, until otherwise provided lby a competent Legislature or other competent authority, ,continue to have> the· same meaning." As a result of this provision the district of Chittoor continued fo 'be governed by all the laws, ineluding the Act, which were in force iil the State of Madras immediately before the 1st of October, 1953. A dispute arose between defendant No. 1 and defendant No. 6 as to wha of them was entitled to a patta under the Act in respect of the lands covered by exhibits A-8 and A-9. The Additional Assistant Settlement Officer resolved the dispute by means of an order dated the 14th of September, 1957 (exhibits B-3 and B-4) holding that defen dant No. 1 was entitled to the patta on the ground that she had throughout been in possession of the lands in question to the exclu- sion of defendant No. 6. • • CHENCHULAKSlIMA1'D'1A v. <D. SUBRAMANYA (Kasha/, !.) I 011 On the same date, i.e., 14th c;f September, 1957, defendant No. 6 ~old' the !antis in dispute by means of a registered sale deed (exhibit A"7) to the plaintiff 1Who was ·his maternal unde and who, about three :years later, filed c!he suit (suit No. 169 of 1960) which has given rise -to this appeal, JJgainst six persons, claiming declaration of title to the said lands and possession thereof. Defendants Nos. 1 and 2 were alleged by the plaintitI to have taken possession of part of the !:ind while defendants "Nos. 3 :to 5 were accused of having trespassed into some other parts thereof. No relief was claimed against defendant iNo. 6 anti the suit was lbascd on ~ale-deed exhibits A-7, A-8 and A-9, .all three of which were claimed to be genuine documents under which, it was pleaded by the plaintiff, possession had passed to defendant No. 6 .in the .first instance and to himself (the plaintiff) on the 14th cif September, 1957. Another plea taken was that the grant of the order evidenced by patta in favour of·defendant No. 1 under .exhibits 13,'3 and B-4 did not confer any title on her and was obtained fraudulently oh the basis of 'her "unlawful possession'. The trial .coutt 'hdd that fhe sa1e deeds exhibits A-8 and A-9 were genuine but that the possession of the lands in dispute had throughout remained with defendants Nos. 1 and 2. It was further of the opinion, however, that by virtue of ,sale deed exhibit A-7 the plaintiff had 'become entitled to the lands. The contention raised on behalf of defendant No. 1 that the civil' courts could not take cognizance of the suit in view ofthe•provisions elf the Act was overruled on the strength of Krishnaswami Thevar v. Perumal Konar(l) wherein it was held that a Settlement Officer had no jurisdiction under the Act to adjudi cate upon rival claims for ihe .grant of a patta and. that such disputes :fell wilhiu the jurisdiction of the civil courts. The suit was found to be within limitation and in view of the other findings above detailed was decreed against ·defendants Nos. 7 and 8 who had by then been substituted for defendants 1 and 2 as the latter's legal representatives, defendants Nos. 1 and 2 having died during the pendency of the suit. No relief was granted aglli.111st defendants 3 to 5 as they did not claim nor were found to 'be in ·possession of any part of the lands in dispute . The learned Additional District Judge of Chittoor who decided the first appeal preferred by defendants Nos. 7 and 8 concurred with the 1indings ot fact arrived at by the trial court but reversed its decree and dismissed the suit holding, on.the authority of Guddiradu v. Murugappa Modali( 2 ) that by virtue of the provisions of section 3 of the Act, with effect from the notified date all rights in fhe lands im dispute vested in '(I) (1961) I Madras Law Journal 168. •(2) (1964) 2 Andbra 'Weekly Reporter 332. Ai B J c "' ' E F G ., ' I 1012 SUPREME COURT REPORTS· [1980] 1 s.c.a. , 1 A. the Government except those recognised under the Act as vesting others so .that after the notified date the only right which a landholder, under-tenure holder or a ryot could claim was the right to obtain a patta. The rights of the plaintiff under exhibit A-7 were thus held to have been dislodged by the grant of a patta to defendant No. l. l' c i In second appeal the High Court observed that the only question: the plaintiff, who was It relied upon requiring determination by it was whether admittedly the owner of the property, lost his right by reason of patta having been granted to defendant No. 1. Krishnaswami Thevars case and A'. R. Sanjeevi Naicker v. P. M. · Shanmuga Udayar( 1) in support of its view that it was competent to a civil court to adjudicate upo'n the title of the parties notwithstanding It was in this view the grant of a patta under the Act to one of hem. of the matter that the High Court accepted the appeal before it ·and restored the decree of the trial court, thus granting to the plaintiff the relief claimed by him; and it is the judgment of the High Court which is challenged before us by defendants Nos. 7 and 8. D

#2. The case was argued before 11s by learned counsel for the con" tending parties on the assumption tliat it was governed by the provi sions of the Andhra Pradesh (Andhra Area) Estates (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as the' Andhra Act'), the provisions enacted by which, except for necessary changes, were practically the same as those of the Madras Act. That assumption, however, is not well-founded. As already pointed out,. Chittoor district (in which lie the lands in dispute) continued to be governed by the provisions of the Madrasi Act as they stooo on the 1st of October, 1953, even after its transfer to the State of Andhra, by. reason of the mandate of section 53 above extracted After I'. date the Madras Act could be amended or repealed by the Andhra Pradesh legislature but till that was dbne, the district cif Chittom:· would continue to be governed by the Madras Act in its unamended form and as it stood on that date; We make it clear, however, that the correction of the error on which the assumption was based would · not really make any difference to the decision of the case inasmuch as the relevant provisions of the Madras Act, as they stood on the 1st of October, 1953, are practically tlie same as the corresponding provi sions of the Andhra Act. Apart from sections 3 and 1 rTo 15, it is section 56 of the Madras Act which clinches the matter. It reads thus: G H. · "56. (1) Where after an estate is notified, a dispute arises as tb (a) whether any. rent due from a ryot foi: any (I) (1965) 2 Madras Law Journal 204:. • • .l-.. . .. • • ." CHENCHULAKSHMAMMA v. D. SUBRAMANYA (Koshal, !.) 1013 fasli year is in arrear or .(b) what amount of rent arrear or ( c) who the lawfn! ryot in respect of any holding is, the dispute shall be decided by the Settlement Officer . (2) Any person deeming himself aggrieved by any deci- sion of the Settlement Officer under sub-section ( 1) may,, within two months from the date' of the decision or such further time as the Tribunal may in its discretion allow, appeal to the Tribunal; and its decision shall be final and not be liable to 1J.e questioned in any court of I.aw." Sub-section (2) of the section categorically declares that the deci sion of the Tribunal deciding the appeal shall be final and not liable to be questioned in any court of law, in so far as it relates to any of the matters. covered by snb-section ( 1). It goes without saying that if no appeal is filed, a similar finality shall attach to the decision of the Settlement Officer. One of such matters is covered by clause ( c) of sub-section (1) and embraces the determination of the question as to who the lawful ryot in respect of any holding is. Questions which a "Settlement Officer may be called upon to decide under the said clause ( c) would certainly include such as may have resulted from a dispute -between two or more persons as to who of them is the lawful ryot; and once a dispute of that type has been adjudlcated upon by the Settlement Officer, his decision becomes final unless an appeal is filed before the Tribunal, in which evenf it is the decision of the Tribunal to which finality attaches. In either case the decision is not liable to be called into question in any Court of law. We need not go into further details on the question of interpretation of section 56 of Madras Act inasmuch as our view is fully supported by another deci iion of this Court in Muddada ·chayanna v. Kamam Narayana and In that case Chinnappa Reddy, J., who delivered Another etc.('). the judgment of the Court was concerned with the interpretation ·be placed on section 56 of the Anilhra Act which repeats word In holding that word the contents of section 56 of the Madras Act. the authorities mentioned in sub-section (2) of section 56 of Andhra Act had exclusive jurisdiction to decide a dispute between rival claimants· for a ryotwari patta, this Court approved the decision -in T. Munuswami Naidu (died) and Others v. R. Venkata Reddi and Others("), in which the same interpretation had been given to section 56 of the Andhra Act as a result of an elaborate discussion. This Court further held that Cherukuru Muthayya v. Gadde Gopala- (1) [1979] 3 S.C.R- 201 (2) A.I.R. 1978 Andhra Pradesh 200, A B c D E F G B1 1014 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1980] l S.C.R. A krisluwyya(') which was also decided by a Full Bench but had been overruled by :; larger Full Dench in Munuswami's case (supra) had: been wrongly decided. \ - • B 'C D. E -G

#3. Faced with the abovei situation, Jeame<l counsel for the plaintiffs sought support for a contrary view from the two Madras cases on which reliance had been placed by the High Court in the impugned judgment. We may state at once that thoso cases aro. wholly irreleval1t for dedding this case and that ·the High Court erred in taking them In this connection all that need be stated is that into consideration. section 56 of the Madras Act was repealed by Madras Act xxxrv· of 1958 and both the Madras cases above mentioned were decid~ after •cction 56 had ceased to be part of the Madras Act. That those cases may well have been differently decided if section 56 had· continued to be part of the Madras Act was recognized by Raina~ ~ chandra Iyer, J., who decided Krislinaswami Tliernrs case (supra} with the following observations : - . "Ihe Abolition Act as originally enacted contained section 56 which conferred in terms a power to decide any dispute as to who the !awful ryot of a holding is. Sub- s·,ction {2) provided for an appeal from such a decision. U that provision were· still to exist, it cnn be s.aid that as the question whether the person was the lawful ryot or not was· one to be decided by the Settlement Officer, the issue of ryotwari patta by him presumably after such decision could not be challenged in a civiI court; to that extent tl::ere wa.ild be an ouster of the jurisdiction of the civil cotin. But section 56( 1) has been repealed by Act XXXIV or" 1958. There is now no machinery to decide the case of a disputed claim to patta. Thus, if a ryot is entitled to tlie ryoti land before . the notification, he would by virtue of that right be entitled to the grant of ryotwari patta. There is nothing in the procednre to be adopted· for the grant of patta under section 11, to justify an adjudicatiO!l of title. Nor is there an}1hiog io the nature of the patta itself to . show that there must have been an adjudication of title in favonr of the pattadar." Krisl1naSHJa1ni The1·ar's case \Vas follo, ved in Sanjeevi "ft.?aicker$ case which is again a Single Bench decisfon in which Ramamnrti, J,. also made a reference to the repeal of section 56 of the Madras Act by a later Madras enactment. 'H (1) A.I.R. 1974 Andhra Pradesh 85. CHENCHULAKSHMAMMA v. D. SUBRAMANYA (Koslwl, J.) 1015

#4. In the above view of the matter no assistance can be drawn by learned counsel for the plaintiff who has to meet the challenge of the provi>ions of section 56 because that section was a part of the Madras Act on the 1st of October, 1953. and continues to be so. in so far as its application to the district of Chittoor in Andhrn Praaesh is concerned, repeal of that section by the Madras Legislature being wholly ineffective in so far as territories forming part of the State of Andhra are concerned. TI1e only other case to which reference was made by learned ceunsel for the plaintiff was Pinninty Peda Govindayya v. Pinninty .Subbarno('). That wus a case in which sections 3, 4, 7, 12 and 14 .ef the Andhra Inams '(Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1956 'and rule 15 of the rules framed thereunder came in for inter _,pretation. The relevancy of the case is not apparent inasmuch as it to a provision similar to the one enacted by 111.akes no reference section 56 of the Madras Act as forming part of the statute or rules then under consideration. We do not see, therefore, that the plaintiffs case is in any manner advanced by the decision cited.

#5. In the result, the appeal succeeds and is accepted. The judg ment of the High Court is set aside and the plaintiff's suit is dismissed on the ground that the civil courts have no jurisdiction to entertain it by reason of the provisions of section 56 oE the Madras Act and that the order of the Additional Settlement Officer dated the l4th of Sep tember, 1957 (exhibits B-3 and B-4) is final and not liable to be questioned in any court of law in so far as the. -determination cf the dispute between the rival claimants to the ryotwari patta is concfa'ned. The plaintll'f-rospondent's costs of the proceedings in this Court shall, however, be paid to him by the appellants i11 accordance with the order dated 30-9-1969 passed by this Court while granting special leave. B c D E p S.R. Appeal allowed. (I~ 1969 II Andhra Weekly Reporter-· Notes of Recent Cases , l.