IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO.4792 OF 2008 (Arising out of S.L.P. (C) No.26358 of 2005)

Kalipindi Appala Narasamma        ...Appellant(s)

Versus

Alla Nageshwara Rao (D) Thr. L.Rs. & Ors.    ...Respondent(s)

O  R  D  E  R

Leave granted.

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

The  plaintiff-appellant,  along  with  Bhavaraju  Nagamani,   filed  a  suit

before the civil court for granting following reliefs:

“1]   For  a  declaration  of  the  permanent  leasehold  right  and interest of plaintiffs 1 and 2 in respect of the plaint schedule land as  per  the  terms  and  conditions  of  the  original  registered permanent lease deed dt.7-2-1951 and for consequential possession of  the plaint schedule property after evicting defendants  2 to 5 therefrom; and from the respective extent in their possession as per the registered sale deeds dt. 24-11-1993 mentioned in para 10 of the plaint;

2]  To pass  a  decree for  Rs.1,68,750/-  against  defendants  1  to  5 towards past mesne profits or for damages for use and occupation with interest thereon at 12% per annum from the date of suit till realization.

...2/-

- 2 -  

3]  For  future  mesne  profits  to  be  determined  under  separate application and for payment of the same with interest thereof at 12% per annum from the respective due dates till realization;

4] To appoint a Receiver to take possession of the plaint schedule land with the paddy crop thereon and manage the same pending disposal of the suit

5] for costs of the suit and  

6]  for such other reliefs as may be deemed just and necessary in the circumstances of the case.”

The Trial Court, after considering the evidence adduced by the parties in

support  of  their  respective  cases,  came to  the  conclusion  that  the  civil  court  had

jurisdiction to entertain the suit.  After deciding that issue, the Trial Court considered

the merits of the case and decree the suit in the following terms:

“In the result, the suit is decreed with costs in favour of the 1st plaintiffs  and  against  the  defendants  1,  3  to  5  and  the  legal representatives of the deceased 2nd defendant, i.e., the defendants – 18 to 20 declaring that the 1st plaintiffs has got permanent lease hold right and interest in respect of the plaint schedule property as per the terms and conditions of the registered permanent lease deed  dated  7.2.1951  and  in  consequence  thereof  directing  the defendants-3 to 5 and 18 to 20 to deliver possession of the same to her within 3 (three) months from this date, failing which the 1st plaintiff is at liberty to get the same executed through from them. The 1st plaintiff is also granted past mesne profits for 1st crop of 1994-95 and 2nd crop of 1995 and future mesne profits from the date of the suit till the date of the delivery of the possession of the plaint

...3/-

- 3 -  

schedule property to her against the defendants-3 to 5 and 18 to 20 along with interest at 12% p.a. from the respective due dates till the date of realisation to be her against the defendants-3 to 5 and 18 to 20 along with interest at 12% p.a. from the respective due  dates  till  the  date  of  realization  to  be  ascertained  on  a separate application.   The suit  filed for the remaining reliefs  is dismissed  without  costs.   As  far  as  the  suit  filed  against  the defendants-6  to  17  is  concerned,  the  same is  dismissed  without costs as no relief is claimed against them.”

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant submitted that. in

view of the nature of the controversy involved in the present suit, as would appear

from the  relief  claimed,  as  enumerated  above,  the  prayer  made on  behalf  of  the

plaintiff was, in sum and substance, a claim for declaration of title and recovery of

possession and there is no provision under the Andhra Pradesh (Area) Tenancy Act,

1956 [for short, “the Act”] under which the Special Tribunal can decide the question

of title.  Learned counsel submitted that jurisdiction of the civil court is not barred

under the Act and the High Court committed an error by setting aside the decree on

the ground that suit was not maintainable before the civil court.

Learned counsel  appearing on behalf  of the respondents  submitted that

although  there  is  no  specific  provision  under  the  Act  which  expressly  bars  the

jurisdiction of the civil  court,  in view of  Section 16 thereof  reliefs  claimed by the

appellant  could  have been granted only  by the Special  Officer and,  therefore,  the

High Court did not commit any error by declaring that the suit filed by the appellant

was not maintainable before the civil court.

...4/-

- 4 -  

We have considered the entire matter.  In our view, the suit jointly filed by

the appellant and Bhavaraju Nagamani was, in effect and substance, for declaration

of title and recovery of possession and the same was maintainable before the civil

court  and  merely  because  for  grant  of  ancillary  relief  claimed  by  the  plaintiffs,

including  the  relief  of  recovery of  possession,  the Special  Officer could have been

moved, the civil court's jurisdiction cannot be treated to have been ousted and the

High Court committed an error in dismissing the suit on the ground that civil court

did not have jurisdiction to entertain the suit.

Accordingly, the appeal is allowed, impugned order rendered by the High

Court is set aside and the matter is remitted to that court for deciding the same afresh

in accordance with law after giving opportunity of hearing to the parties.

......................J.       [B.N. AGRAWAL]

......................J.       [G.S. SINGHVI]

New Delhi, August 04, 2008.