C S RANGASWAMY Vs. PEDDA BIDDA
LAWS(APH)-1971-12-9
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
Decided on December 02,1971

C.S.RANGASWAMY Appellant
VERSUS
PEDDA BIDDA Respondents

JUDGEMENT

Gopal Rao Ekbote, J. - (1.) This appeal is from the judgment of our learned brother, Obul Reddi, J. given in S. A. No. 118 of 1967, on 22-4-1970 where by the learned Judge allowed the appeal holding that the Civil Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the suit and consequently directed the return of the plaint for its presentation before the proper forum created by the Estates Abolition Act.
(2.) The relevant facts are that the plaintiff who is not 6th respondent before us filed a suit for declaration of title in regard to a land admeasuring Ac. 1-50 cents situate in Peddabadanevada village in former Kuppam Zamindari. He claimed the suit land as private land. He wanted possession of the same. he claimed past as well as future mesne profits.
(3.) The allegation was that Chakravarthi Srinivasa Raghavachari was the original holder of inam. He, because he was old, and the other members of the family entrusted the management to Rajagopala Chakravarthy, the 6th respondent herein, to manage the estate as well as to institute the present suit out of which this appeal arises. It was alleged that by Ex. A-5 dated 24-8-1919. Srinivasa Raghavachari usufructuarily mortgaged the suit land to one Gangappa the father of Defendant 1. to 4 and husband of Defendant No. 5 for a sum of Rs. 160.00. ON 18/6/1945, Ex. A-6, the mortgage was discharged. Gangappa was given lease by Srinivasa Raghavachari of the suit land. Till three years prior to his death he was paying rent. His heirs, after his death, continued the cultivation as tenants and continued to pay the rent till 1363 Fasli. It was further alleged that defendants then committed default. The plaintiff, therefore, issued the suit notice, Ex . A-2, on 18-4-1955 claiming possession and share of the produce. The defendants gave a reply notice, Ex. A-3 on 26-4-1955. They denied the tenancy as well as the title of the plaintiff. The plaintiff, therefore, claimed the above said reliefs.;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.