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

PETITIONER: SHRI LOKRAJ AND ORS.

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: KISHAN LAL AND ORS.

DATE OF JUDGMENT11/01/1995

BENCH: RAMASWAMY, K. BENCH: RAMASWAMY, K. MANOHAR SUJATA V. (J)

CITATION:  1995 SCC  (3) 291        JT 1995 (2)   500  1995 SCALE  (1)295

ACT:

HEADNOTE:

JUDGMENT: ORDER 1.This  appeal  by special leave arises  from  the  division bench judgment dated January 22, 1986 made in CRP No.  1215/ 77  of  the High Court of Andhra Pradesh.   The  respondent- plaintiff  laid the suit-O.S. No.59 of 1968 in the Court  of the  Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad for  partition of  the  plaint  schedule properties  and  for  1/6th  share therein.    We  are  concerned  in  this  appeal  with   the properties  mentioned  in ’D’ schedule of  the  plaint.   It consists  of  8  items, of which item 5  relates  to  lands- bearing  Survey  Nos.  174,  175,  179,  192,  193  and  205 admeasuring 20 acres 21 gunthas situated in Attapur village. The  said land was acquired by the government  to  establish Zoo.   The compensation was determined in O.P.No.35/  63  by the  First Addl.  Judge, City Civil Court,  Hyderabad.   The rest of the properties are now found to be Inam lands as per the finding of the High Court:-               "Thus,  there  does  not  appear  to  be   any               controversy   between  the  parties   on   the               question  whether  the  plaint  ’B’   schedule               properties are Inam lands or not.   Therefore,               it becomes an admitted fact that the plaint  B               schedule lands are Inam lands". 2.On  those admitted facts, the Division Bench proceeded  to consider  whether  the suit for partition  is  maintainable. Section  3 of the Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area)  Abolition of  Inams  Act, 1955, as amended in 1967,  (for  short  ’the Act’) 502 deals  with  the abolition and vesting of  the  Inam  lands. Section 3(1) is relevant, which reads thus:               "Abolition  and  vesting  of  inams  and   the               consequences  thereof. (1) Notwithstanding  to               the   contrary   contained   in   any    usage               settlement,  contract, grant, sanad  order  or

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

             other  instrument, Act, regulation,  rules  or               order   having   the   force   of   law    and               notwithstanding  any judgment, decree or order               of a Civil, Revenue or Atiyat Court, and  with               effect from the date of vesting, all inams  to               which  this Act is made applicable under  sub-               s.(2)  of s. 1 of this Act shall be deemed  to               have  been  abolished and shall  vest  in  the               State". 3.   Therefore,    notwithstanding   any    contra    usage, settlements etc. enumerates s.3(1), on and from the date  of the Act the inams were abolished and inam lands stood vested in the State.  Section. 3 expressly saves certain properties from the vesting as enumerated in clauses (a) to (i) of  the sub-s.(2)   thereof,  with  which  we  are   not   presently concerned.   Section  4 gives right to registration  by  the Inamdar  as  occupant.  As per this Section,  every  inamdar shall, with effect from the date of vesting, be entitled  to be  registered as an occupant of all inam lands  other  than the  lands enumerated in clauses (a) to (c)  therein.   Sec- tions 6 to 8 deal with registration of permanent tenants  as occupants, either protected tenants or non-protected tenants etc.  Section  5  deals with  registration  of  Kabize-kadim tenants  as  occupant.   Section 9  deals  with  vesting  of certain  buildings and inam lands used for  non-agricultural purposes.  Section 10 creates forum for determination of the entitlements  in ss.4 to 9. Section 11 saves certain  rights ereated  under  the  Act  before  the  date  of  vesting  as Inamdars.   Section  23 deals with constitution  of  Special Tribunals  and their power to deal with the questions  arose therein.  Section 24 gives right of appeal against the order passed  by  the  authorities  constituted  under  s.  10  to determine  the questions enumerated in ss.4 to 9.  Thus  the Act is a complete Code, abolished the Inam, vested the  land in the government and conferred rights on the persons in oc- cupation enumerated, subject to the right of appeal and  the decision  thereon.   The Act abolished existing  rights  and created  new rights.  Created forum to determine the  rights and liabilities arising therefrom.  The question, therefore, is  whether  the civil suit for partition  is  maintainable, after the estate was abolished. 4.   Consequent  to the abolition, the  pre-existing  right, title  and  interest  of the Inamdar or  any  person  having occupation  of  the Inam lands stood divested and  vest  the same  in  the  State until regrant is  made.   The  inamdar, thereby  lost the pre-existing right, title and interest  in the land.  The right to partition itself also has been  lost by  the statutory operation unless regrant is made.  We  are not  concerned with the consequences that would ensue  after regrant of this appeal.  Therefore, it is not necessary  for us to go into the question that may arise after the regrant. 5.In  B.P. Narain Singh v. S. Mukherjee. 1.971 (3) SCR  639, this  Court held that after the estate was  abolished  under Bihar Land Reforms Act 1950, the decree for partition  stood abated  as  the lands stood vested with all  assets  in  the State  of Bihar.  This Court pointed out that the object  of the  Act  was  to cause transference to  the  State  of  the interest  of the proprietors and tenure-holders in  land  as also of the mortgagees and lessees of such 503 interests including interest in the lands etc. etc.   Though the  plaintiffs therein had a share in the lands as  a  ryat after the regrant, but they had- lost the right as a tenure- holder  or proprietor.  In S.P. Shah v. B.N. Singh,  (1969)3 SCR   908,  this  Court  held  that  after  the  estate   is

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

abolished,the rights created under s.6 of the Bihar Land Re- forms  Act  has  to be worked out  in  accordance  with  the provisions of the Act.  In Chayanna v. K. Nannayana, -(1979) 3 SCC 42, and Chenchulakshmamma v. Subramanya Reddy,  (1980) 1 SCR 1006, this Court held that after the abolition of  the estate ’and vesting of the land in the State, while the  new rights  were created under the Act, the civil court  has  no jurisdiction  to  adjudicate the pre-existing  rights.   The parties have to work out the rights under the Act before the forums created thereunder. 6.   In  Sheethal Singh v. Mahmood Shariff, 1984 (1)  Andhra Weekly Reporter, 406, a Single Judge of the High Court  con- sidered  the  effect  of the  abolition  and  following  the judgments   of  this  Court  held  that  the  suit  is   not maintainable.  The Division Bench overruled the judgment  on the   sole  ground  that  the  ratio  in  Govind  Reddy   v. Lakshminarayan  Reddy, 1959(1) Andhra Weekly  Reporter,  was not  considered,  therefore,  it  was  not  good  law.   The Division  Bench  obviously overlooked the  fact  that  under Aliyat  Act  the  ultimate  jurisdiction  for  deciding  the question  has been vested only in the civil  court.   There- fore,  the  division bench in Govind Reddy’s case  had  held that  suit for partition was maintainable.  But that  ration bears no relevance to the consequence that would ensue under the  Act.  The division bench, therefore, was not  right  in holding  that the suit for partition is  maintainable,  even though Inam has been abolished under the Act and the,  lands stood vested in the State. 7.Madhav Reddy, the learned senior counsel,placing  reliance on  K. Babgonda Patil v.B.K. Patil, (1989)Supp (1) scc  246, and  S.T.  Karaban  v.  P.H.  Karaban,  (1994)4  SCALE  750, contended  that the right to claim partition has.  not  been lost,  though Inam has been abolished.  We find no force  in the  contention.   Therein,  after abolition  of  the  Watan regrants  were made in favour of Watandars.  In view of  the pre-existing watans burdened with service of watandar as per pre-existing law, excluded the junior members of the  family to  claim partition, was abolished and regrant was  made  to the  watandar,  after the regrant the  property  became  the joint  family  property.  So the coparceners  of  the  Hindu joint  family  were  held  entitled  to  lay  the  suit  for partition  and civil court has jurisdiction to grant  decree of  partition by metes and bounds pro-rata.  ’Mat ratio  has no  application to the facts of this case.  When regrant  is made  and  in what capacity the regrant would be made  is  a matter to be considered and decided in terms of the regrant. 8.The  appeal is accordingly allowed in respect of  all  the items  except item 5 of the ’B’ schedule.  The  suit  stands dismissed.   With respect to item 5, the civil  court  would proceed  for  deciding  the  controversy  relating  to   the compensation awarded by the civil court between the  parties in terms of shares to which parties arc entitled to.  In the facts and circumstances of the case, parties are directed to bear their own costs. 506