07 May 1996
Supreme Court
Download

PUSHPAGIRI NATH Vs KOPPARAJU VEERABHADRA RAO

Bench: RAMASWAMY,K.
Case number: C.A. No.-008994-008994 / 1996
Diary number: 66056 / 1984


1

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 3  

PETITIONER: PUSHPAGIRI MATH

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: KOPPARAJU VEERABHADRA RAO

DATE OF JUDGMENT:       07/05/1996

BENCH: RAMASWAMY, K. BENCH: RAMASWAMY, K. FAIZAN UDDIN (J) G.B. PATTANAIK (J)

CITATION:  JT 1996 (5)   590        1996 SCALE  (5)8

ACT:

HEADNOTE:

JUDGMENT:                   THE 7TH DAY OF MAY, 1996 Present:           Hon’ble Mr.Justice K.Ramaswamay           Hon’ble Mr.Justice Faizan Uddin           Hon’ble Mr.Justice G.B.Pattanaik Mr.A.Subba Rao, Advocate for the appellant.                          O R D E R The following Order of the Court was delivered : Pushpagiri Math V. Kopparaju Veerabhadra Rao.                          O R D E R      Leave granted. Substitution allowed.      Though the dasti notice had been served on the L.R., he refused to accept as per the statement made in the affidavit filed in  support of  the dasti service. Accordingly we have heard the counsel for the appellant.      The case  of the  respondent set  up in  the plaint was that originally  the Properly belonged to the appellant Shri Pushpagiri Math.  Subsequently, the  property was granted in favour of one K. Narasingaiah, the great grand-father of the plaintiff as  Bhatavarthi  Inam  by  Sankaracharya  who  was Peetadhipathi  of   the  math.  He  was  in  possession  and enjoyment as  a grantee.  Subsequently, he acquired title by prescription.  The  trial  Court  decreed  the  suit  in  OS No.66/68 dated September 30, 1974. On appeal, the Additional Subordinate Judge,  Narasaraopet in  his judgment and decree dated December  29, 1979 in A.S. No.218/78 held that Ex. A-1 to  Ex.A-10   positively  show  that  the  suit  land  is  a Bhatavarthi Inam land and was in possession of the ancestors of the  respondent-plaintiff since  1950 under  Ex.A-1.  The land, therefore,  is a Bhatavarthi Inam land as evidenced by Ex.A-1 to  A-10 granted  originally  by  Bhatavarthi  in  or around the  year 1900  for rendering  service that was being rendered by the plaintiff-math to the appellant. Math is the

2

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 3  

real owner  of the land granted as an inam to the respondent plaintiff. It  was also  found that  Ex.B-1 to B-14 and B-17 would prove  conclusive evidence  that the  appellant is the absolute owner  of the land and the respondent plaintiff and his ancestors  were permitted  to continue in possession and enjoyment of  the land  as inamdars for service rendered and to the  rendered by  them to  the institution. The appellate Court accordingly  held that  the decree  for declaration of title and  injunction cannot  be granted  against  the  real owner. In S.A. No. 191/88, the High Court of A.P by judgment and decree  dated March  8, 1983 reversed he judgment of the appellate Court  and confirmed that of the trail Court. Thus this appeal by special leave.      When it  is an  admitted case  that the land originally belonged to  the Math  and  when  the  appellate  Court  has recorded the finding of fact on the basis of the documentary evidence that the Math is the owner of the property and that the respondent  admittedly came  in possession as an Inamdar to  render   service  to  the  math,  he  cannot  claim  any possessory title  or title  in his own right. Under the A.P. Inam Abolition  and Conversion into Ryotwari Act, Act 37/56, after the  Act had  come into force, the pre-existing right, title and  interest Stood  extinguished and  the new  rights were sought  to be  conferred  under  Section  3  read  with Section 7 thereof either in a sun motu enquiry under Section 3 or  on an  application under  Section 7.  A new  grant  of ryotwari patta  is to  be made by the Tehsildar by way of an order after enquiry to the extent of entitlement as per law. it would  be subject  to an appeal to the Revenue Divisional officer which  becomes final.  In  Peddinti  Venkata  Murail Ranganath Deslka  Iyengar &  Ors v.  Govt of  A.P. & Anr [JT 1996 (1)  SC 234  ], a Bench of two Judges of this Court (in which one  of us K Ramaswamy J. was a member) had considered the scope  and operation  of the  Act. While considering the constitutional validity  of Section 76 of the A.P Charitable and Hindu  Religious Institution  and Endowments  Acts 1987, the Court held that a person or institution or the tenant in occupation is  entitled to  ryotwari patta in respect of the land. The  institution is  entitled to the extent of 2/3 and the tenant  or person  is entitled  to ryotwari  patta to an extent of  1/3 share.  The grant  of  ryotwari  patta  udder Section 7  becomes conclusive overriding the effect given by Section 15 over any other law. It would therefore be clear - that after  the Inam stood abolished the pre-existing rights extinguished and  the obligation  to render service burdened with the  land was  relieved. The  holder of the land became entitled to  free hold ryotwari patta. Thus the pre-existing rights title and interest stood extinguished.      It would  thus be  clear that by statutory operation of the provisions of the Act the pre-existing right or interest held by  the inamdar  or the  institution stood extinguished and conferment  of ryotwari  patta under Section 7 read with Section 3 becomes conclusive between the parties. Therefore. the jurisdiction  of the civil Court to declare title to the Inam land  by necessary  implication, stood  excluded. Under those circumstances,  the respondent cannot cannot claim any exclusive title  to the  property as  an owner and lay claim for declaration  of title  on that basis. Unfortunately, the High  Court  blisfully  became  ignorant  to  the  statutory operation of  law and  the legal evidence and the effect and proceeded on  the premise  that the  grant has been lost and the  respondent   has  become   owner  of  the  property  by prescription. Though  the plea  of  adverse  possession  was raised, no  issue has  been framed  the that  behalf nor any finding was  recorded by  the trial  Court or  the appellate

3

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 3  

Court .  Under these  circumstances,   the  High  Court  was wholly wrong  in its  conclusion  that  the  respondent  has established his title to the property.      The appeal  is accordingly allowed anti the suit of the respondent  stands   dismissed.  But  in  the  circumstances without costs.