THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE S. RAVI KUMAR SECOND APPEAL No.122 of 2006 Date:19.01.2015 Between: The District Collector, Srikakulam and others. ..... Appellants. AND Bagathi Krishna Rao and another. .....Respondents. The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE S. RAVI KUMAR SECOND APPEAL No.122 of 2006 ORDER: This appeal is preferred against judgment dated 15-04-2005 in A.S.No.121/2000 on the file of I Additional District Judge, Srikakulam whereunder judgment dated 28- 07-2000 in O.S.No.26/1994 on file of Senior Civil Judge, Sompeta, Srikakulam District was confirmed. 2. Brief facts leading to this appeal are as follows: Respondents 1 & 2 filed O.S.No.26/1994 seeking declaration, possession and consequential injunction against defendants, who are appellants and respondents 3 to 10 herein. Appellants are defendants 1 to 3 and respondents 3 to 10 are defendants 4 to 11 in the above referred O.S.No.26/1994. 3. Parties are hereinafter referred to as plaintiffs and defendants as arrayed in the suit for convenience and better understanding. 4. According to plaintiffs, their paternal grand father by name; Jananki Ramaiah purchased plaint schedule land under a registered sale deed dated 26-03-1919 from Vanakala Mallaiah and others. Suit lands are zeroyity lands and situated within the erstwhile Zamindar of Tarla estate in the then Ganjam District and presently of Srikakulam District. Plaintiffs contended that eversince the date of purchase, paternal grand father of plaintiffs enjoyed the same and thereafter in the partition, the suit property fell to the share of plaintiffs’ father Jagannayakulu and he enjoyed the same during his life time and after his death in the year 1985, plaintiffs continued to enjoy the property. According to plaintiffs, they used to raise dry crops in the suit lands and as it was nearer to sea due to nature’s fury, they became sand cast and unfit for cultivation therefore, they raised casurana and cashew nut trees. During the life time of plaintiffs’ father, second defendant served a notice under Section 7 of Land Encroachment Act, 1905 (hereinafter referred to ‘Act, 1905’) contending that plaintiffs’ father was an encroacher of Acs.08-00 cents of land and plaintiffs’ father filed objections informing second defendant that he is not an encroacher and the land was wrongly classified as sand cast waste land and requested to correct the classification. While so, defendants 4 to 11, who are neighbouring land owners, threatened plaintiffs’ father with dispossession from the suit land and on that, plaintiffs’ father filed O.S.No.59/1982 for permanent injunction against defendants 4 to 11 and that the said suit was dismissed and an appeal was preferred against the said dismissal order. As defendants 1 & 2 have not responded to the objections of the plaintiffs’ father in respect of notice issued under Section 7 of the Act, 1905, plaintiffs were advised to approach settlement authorities to obtain patta under Section 11 (a) of A.P. (A.A) Estates (Abolition and Conversion Into Ryotwari) Act, 1948 and accordingly, they approached Settlement Authorities and defendants 4 to 11 also applied and proceedings are pending before the settlement authority. Since Hon’ble Supreme Court pronounced a judgment to the effect that parties can approach Civil Court for declaration of title and for change of classification, plaintiffs have filed the present suit, after issuing Section 80-notice to defendants 1 to 3. 5. Defendants 1 to 3 resisted the claim of the plaintiffs and contended that plaintiffs’ remedy is to approach the Director of Survey and Settlement, Hyderabad for change of classification and that Civil Court has no jurisdiction. They also contended that suit lands are vested in the Government, after Tarla Estate was taken over and that the plaintiffs were never in possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule lands and Tahsildar handed over the schedule lands to Forest Department, which is in their possession and enjoyment, therefore, the suit is misconceived. It is also contended that the issue relating to this matter was already decided by a Competent Court in O.S.No.59/1982, and findings of the said suit operate as resjudicata and the suit is not maintainable. 6. Defendants 4 to 11 contended that plaintiffs have to take recourse under Act, 1905, as notice under Section 7 of the Act, 1905 was already issued. They also contended that Civil Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the suit. They further contended that that the land in Survey No.276 is Acs.60-00 including the suit land and the entire land was treated as Poramboke even during the Zamindari of Tarla Estate and these defendants are in possession of Acs.60-00 cents of land since the time of their fore-fathers and the sale deed dated 26-03-1919 do not relate to the suit lands and Civil Court has no jurisdiction to change the classification of the lands and the plaintiffs have to approach Settlement Authorities for declaration. They also contended that the suit is barred under Order II Rule 2 CPC as the plaintiffs have to include all the claims in one suit arising out of the same cause of action. 7. As already referred above O.S.No.26/1994 was filed by respondents 1 & 2 herein seeking declaration of tile and possession of the suit property, which was decreed in favour of plaintiffs against which, A.S.No.121/2000 was filed, which was decided by I Additional District Judge, Srikakulam confirming the judgment and decree of the trial Court as against which, the present appeal is preferred. 8. This Court, by judgment dated 10-04-2006, dismissed the second appeal as against which, the appellants herein preferred Civil Appeal No.2754/2007 before the Hon’ble Supreme Court, wherein it was observed that the State of Andhra Pradesh is not made as a party i.e., appellant in the second appeal and also in the First Appellate Court and further observed that private defendants in the original suit are to be impleaded as parties to the second appeal and on these two counts, the Hon’ble Supreme Court was pleased to set aside the judgment of this Court, dated 10-04-2006, and remanded the second appeal enabling the appellants herein to implead the private defendants i.e., original defendants 4 to 11 in the suit as parties and also to implead the State of Andhra Pradesh. In pursuance of the orders of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, SAMP No.278/2014 is filed and this Court by order, dated 20-06-2014, impleaded the private defendants i.e., defendants 4 to 11 in the suit as respondents 3 to 10 herein besides impleading the State of Andhra Pradesh represented by District Collector as fourth appellant and the office carried out necessary amendments. After complying the said formalities, both side advocates submitted their arguments. 9. On behalf of plaintiffs, four witnesses were examined and 30 documents were marked, whereas on defendants side, six witnesses were examined and 35 documents were marked. The substantial question of law raised by the appellants in this appeal is that whether the Civil Court has got jurisdiction to entertain a suit in view of the bar under Section 14 of the Andhra Pradesh (Andhra Area) Inams (Abolition And Conversation Into Ryotwari) Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as Act, 1956). So far as the facts are concerned, there is no much disputes and both the Courts concurrently decided the facts in favour of the plaintiffs. One of the objections of the appellants is that the suit as filed is not maintainable in view of Section 14 of the Act, 1956 and also for the reason that the suit is initiated after issue of notice under Section 7 of the Act, 1905. 10. Advocate for appellants vehemently argued that the plaintiffs have to approach Director of Survey and Settlement, Hyderabad for change of classification of the suit lands and the suit seeking declaration is not maintainable. He further submitted that the suit lands were vested in the Government, after the Tarla Estate was taken over. He further submitted that the plaintiffs were never in possession and enjoyment of the suit lands and these lands were handed over to the Forest Department. 11. On the other hand, Advocate for plaintiffs contended that there is clinching evidence, both oral and documentary to show that plaintiffs have been in possession and enjoyment of the suit lands and the revenue authorities wrongly classified the suit lands as sand cast waste lands though they are ryotwari lands. He submitted that in view of the findings of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Tamilnadu vs. Rama Linga Samigal Madam[1] and judgment of this Court in Polavarapu Parasuramudu v. Chintalapudi Laxmi[2], the Civil Court has got jurisdiction and the objection of the appellants is not at all tenable. 12. I n State of Tamilnadu v. Ramalinga Samigal Madam’s case (1 Supra), it was held that even after finality was attained to the orders passed by the Special Tribunal, the Civil Court has got jurisdiction to determine title in respect of the disputed property. As per the provisions of Inams Act, 1956, person in possession of property as on the date of notification can protect possessory title in pursuance of his or her long enjoyment of the land and the Civil Court has got jurisdiction to entertain a suit even for injunction. In the above decision, Hon’ble Supreme Court observed that there is no machinery under the Act to determine dispute between two rival claims regarding their title and in such case only, Civil Court alone can decide the question of title. In this case, the claim of plaintiffs is to declare their title over the suit schedule property and unless, the classification recorded by the Revenue Authorities is changed, the plaintiffs cannot get a ryotwari patta under the provisions of Section 11 of the Act, 1956 and therefore, they are constrained to file the present suit. 13. In Polavarupu Parasuramudu’s Case (2 Supra), this Court observed enquiry under Section 11 of the Act, 1956 is only a summary enquiry and authorities discharging duties under the said Act have no jurisdiction to declare title to the property. As rightly pointed out by advocate for plaintiffs, the suit as filed is maintainable in view of the principles laid down in the above referred two decisions and objection of appellants with regard to jurisdiction is not tenable. 14. The other objection raised on behalf of the appellants is that the findings in the earlier suit i.e., O.S.No.59/1982 operate as resjudicata and on that ground, the present suit O.S.No.26/1994 is not maintainable. In fact, this objection was raised before the trial Court and on a thorough verification of findings in the earlier suit O.S.No.59/1982, the trial Court observed that the scope of enquiry in that suit was very limited that being a suit for mere injunction and that the appellants herein are not parties to that suit and on these two grounds held that there is no resjudicata. This finding was confirmed by the appellate Court. On a verification of the material, I do not find any wrong application of law concerning principle of resjudicata. The trial Court and appellate Court have rightly appreciated the evidence on record and came to a right conclusion on both the aspects namely Civil Court’s jurisdiction and principle of resjudicata. 15. The next contention of the appellants is that the suit is barred under Order II Rule 2 CPC. In fact, this objection is raised by defendants 4 to 11, who are now added as respondents 3 to 10 to this appeal, but they have not raised this objection at the time of hearing of this appeal. As seen from the material papers, trial Court has elaborately considered this aspect and by referring to judgments of this Court and judgments of Hon’ble Supreme Court, negatived the objection of respondents 3 to 10 herein with regard to bar of the suit under Order II Rule 2 CPC. 16. As seen from the material on record, the cause of action for filing suit in O.S.No.59/1982 is different from the cause of action for filing the present suit. The earlier suit was only against respondents 3 to 10 herein for a mere injunction, whereas the present suit is a comprehensive suit for a declaration against the appellants herein and respondents 3 to 10, who are defendants in the earlier suit O.S.No.59/1982. I do not find any wrong appreciation of facts or application of law both by the trial Court and First Appellate Court and both the Courts have answered each and every aspect with reference to facts and law. 17. On a scrutiny of the material, I am of the view that the objections raised by the appellants with regard to maintainability of the suit and Civil Court’s jurisdiction are not at all tenable and as such, there is no substantial question of law to be decided by this Court and the second appeal is devoid of merits and liable to be dismissed. 18. Accordingly, second appeal is dismissed, but under the circumstances without costs. 19. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this second appeal, shall stand dismissed. __________________________ JUSTICE S. RAVI KUMAR Date:19.01.2015 mrb [1] AIR 1986 SUPREME COURT 794 [2] 2000 (5) ALD 383