Case: Annamreddi Bodayya and Another Vs. Lokanarapu Ramaswamy (Dead) By Lrs

ryot in respect of the holding because jurisdiction to decide this dispute is conferred on the Settlement Officer and sub-section (2) of the Section 56 provides that the decision of the Settlement Officer on the questions set out in sub-section (1) of Section 56 shall be final and not liable to be questioned at any rate in any court of law, which would imply that the jurisdiction of the civil court to decide these questions is ousted. 5. The trial court decreed the suits in favour of plaintiff respondents. 6. It may at once be mentioned that the contention as to want of jurisdiction was not raised in the written statement filed in the trial court. In the first appeals A.S. Nos. 96, 97 and 98 of 1957 preferred by the present appellant an application for amendment of the written statements was moved seeking to raise a contention that the civil court had no jurisdiction to entertain the suits for the reasons hereinabove mentioned. Applications for amendment were granted. The contention as to want of jurisdiction found favour with the Appellate Court. The Appellate Court held that as the estate has vested in the State a question arose under the 1948 Act as to who is the lawful ryot in respect of the holding and the civil court had no jurisdiction to decide the contention. Accordingly appeals preferred by the appellants were allowed and the plaints in the suits filed by the respondents were ordered to be returned for presentation to the proper court. The respondents preferred appeals to the High Court of Andhra Pradesh. The view of the Andhra Pradesh High Court at that time was that the civil court had jurisdiction to entertain the suits more particularly where the prayers it the suits were for a decree for possession and mesne profits and accordingly the appeals were allowed and the judgment of the First Appellate Court was set aside and the matter was remitted to the First Appellate Court for disposal of appeals on merits. On remand the appeals of the appellants were dismissed and after unsuccessful appeals in the High Court they approached this Court under Article 136 of the Constitution. Hence these appeals by special leave. 7. The only contention Mr Vepa P. Sarathi, learned counsel for the appellants canvassed our consideration is that in view of the provision contained in Section 56 of 1948 Act the civil court had no jurisdiction to entertain the suits in which one of the questions required to be examined was as to who was the lawful ryot in respect of the holding because jurisdiction to decide that issue was conferred on the Settlement Officer and his decision so far as the court was concerned was to be final. We are spared a detailed enquiry into the merits of this contention in view of the decision of this Court in Muddada Chayana v. Karnam Narayana ((1979) 3 SCR 201 : (1979) 3 SCC 42 : AIR 1979 SC 1320 ) in which this Court after taking note of the two larger bench later decisions of the Andhra Pradesh High Court categorically held that the civil court had no jurisdiction to entertain a suit in which on the advent of the 1948 Act and vesting of estate in the State one of the questions to be considered is as to who is the lawful ryot in respect of the holding. A full bench of three Judges of the High Court took the view that civil court had jurisdiction to decide that issue but a later five Judges bench overruled the same and took a contrary view. In T. Munuswami Naidu v. R. Venkata Reddi (AIR 1978 AP 200 ) a larger bench taking a contrary view reversed the earlier decision of the full bench in Cherukuru Muthayya v. Gadde Gopalakrishnayya (AIR 1974 AP 85 : (1973) 2 APLJ 209 : ILR 1973 AP 1204). This Court affirmed and approved the view taken in Munuswami Naidu (AIR 1978 AP 200 ) which in terms lays down that the civil court had no jurisdiction to decide the question as to who is the lawful ryot in respect of the holding. Such a contention goes to the root of the matter and its decision one way or other decides the availability of protection in matter of grant of patta. This very contention was directly and substantially raised in the suit that civil court had no jurisdiction to decide and deal with the same but Settlement Officer had the exclusive jurisdiction to decide and deal with the same. Naturally, the suits filed by the respondents in civil court were bound to fail for want of jurisdiction according to the view taken by this Court in Muddada Chayana case ((1979) 3 SCR 201 : (1979) 3 SCC 42 : AIR 1979 SC 1320 ) which was reaffirmed in the later decision in Oduru Chenchulakshmamma v. Duvvuru Subrahmanya Reddy ((1980) 1 SCR 1006 : (1980) 3 SCC 130 : AIR 1980 SC 133 ).8. Both the decisions of this Court were read over to us. They lay down the correct law. Language of Section 56 of 1948 Act more especially the provision in sub-section (1) which makes the order of Settlement Officer final and which cannot be questioned in any court leaves no room for doubt that the issues set out in sub-section (1) of Section 56 could be decided by Settlement Officer only and in respect of them the jurisdiction of the civil is ousted. The High Court was in error in holding that the civil court had jurisdiction to entertain the suits. It may be noted that the law in this behalf has been set right apart from the decisions of this Court by the decision of the larger bench of the same High Court. If the trial court had no jurisdiction to entertain the suits the first appellate court was right in directing that the plaints be returned for presentation to the proper court.

Decision (1 = appeal accepted, 0 = rejected): 1

Explanation:
1[ds]8. Both the decisions of this Court were read over to us. They lay down the correct law. Language of Section 56 of 1948 Act more especially the provision inn (1) which makes the order of Settlement Officer final and which cannot be questioned in any court leaves no room for doubt that the issues set out inn (1) of Section 56 could be decided by Settlement Officer only and in respect of them the jurisdiction of the civil is ousted. The High Court was in error in holding that the civil court had jurisdiction to entertain the suits. It may be noted that the law in this behalf has been set right apart from the decisions of this Court by the decision of the larger bench of the same High Court. If the trial court had no jurisdiction to entertain the suits the first appellate court was right in directing that the plaints be returned for presentation to the proper courtWe are spared a detailed enquiry into the merits of this contention in view of the decision of this Court in Muddada Chayana v. Karnam Narayana ((1979) 3 SCR 201   : (1979) 3 SCC 42   : AIR 1979 SC 1320  ) in which this Court after taking note of the two larger bench later decisions of the Andhra Pradesh High Court categorically held that the civil court had no jurisdiction to entertain a suit in which on the advent of the 1948 Act and vesting of estate in the State one of the questions to be considered is as to who is the lawful ryot in respect of the holding. A full bench of three Judges of the High Court took the view that civil court had jurisdiction to decide that issue but a later five Judges bench overruled the same and took a contrary view. In T. Munuswami Naidu v. R. Venkata Reddi (AIR 1978 AP 200  ) a larger bench taking a contrary view reversed the earlier decision of the full bench in Cherukuru Muthayya v. Gadde Gopalakrishnayya (AIR 1974 AP 85   : (1973) 2 APLJ 209 : ILR 1973 AP 1204). This Court affirmed and approved the view taken in Munuswami Naidu (AIR 1978 AP 200  ) which in terms lays down that the civil court had no jurisdiction to decide the question as to who is the lawful ryot in respect of the holding. Such a contention goes to the root of the matter and its decision one way or other decides the availability of protection in matter of grant of patta. This very contention was directly and substantially raised in the suit that civil court had no jurisdiction to decide and deal with the same but Settlement Officer had the exclusive jurisdiction to decide and deal with the same. Naturally, the suits filed by the respondents in civil court were bound to fail for want of jurisdiction according to the view taken by this Court in Muddada Chayana case ((1979) 3 SCR 201   : (1979) 3 SCC 42   : AIR 1979 SC 1320  ) which was reaffirmed in the later decision in Oduru Chenchulakshmamma v. Duvvuru Subrahmanya Reddy ((1980) 1 SCR 1006   : (1980) 3 SCC 130   : AIR 1980 SC 133  ).