9911796707
|
Home
Issues involved: Dispute over ownership of survey plots, jurisdiction of civil court to try the suit.
Issue 1: Ownership Dispute The dispute revolves around survey plots No. 149 and 150, originally owned by Galappa, purchased by the father of the appellants in 1917. Legal proceedings ensued after a claim by Tayamma that she executed a mortgage deed, not a sale deed. A suit for declaration of title was filed in 1932, which was decreed in favor of the father of the appellants. Subsequently, the appellants sought recovery of arrears of rent and correction of tenancy register, facing denial of their title by Saibanna, the tenant. The suit for possession and mesne profits was filed treating the defendants as trespassers. Issue 2: Jurisdiction of Civil Court The High Court held that the civil court lacked jurisdiction to try the suit, citing Sections 32 and 99 of the Hyderabad Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act. The High Court dismissed the suit, stating that possession relief could only be sought from the revenue court under Section 32(1) of the Act. The appellants argued that the suit was cognizable by the civil court as it was against trespassers, not merely based on landlord-tenant relationship. Judgment: The Supreme Court found that the suit was cognizable by the civil court, disagreeing with the High Court's decision on jurisdiction. The High Court's judgment was set aside, and the case was remanded for consideration of other issues on merits. The Court declined to confirm the first appellate court's decision without a review by the High Court on all issues involved. The appeal was allowed, with no orders as to costs, ensuring no prejudice to the respondents' rights under any other enactment.
|
