GROVER - (1.) THIS is an appeal by certificate from a judgment of the Andhra Pradesh High Court.
(2.) IN the year 1953 the appellant instituted a suit against the respondent for a permanent injunction restraining the respondent from obstructing the appellant's possession and enjoyment of his property known as 'Jumerate Bazaarat' and from collecting any amount therefrom except the prescribed municipal taxes. The suit was decreed by the trial court. On appeal by the respondent the decree of the trial court was reversed by the High Court and the suit was dismissed. According to the allegations in the plaint the disputed property which was called "Maidan Bazaar Jamerath", hereinafter referred to as the "Bazaar" situated at Karvan Aspan and bounded on the east by canal and police station, on the west by 'Bakar Mandi', on the north by cement road, graveyard and huts belonging to the plaintiff and on the south by land, huts and graveyards belonging to the plaintiff was the ancestral property of the plaintiff and was owned by him having been purchased by his ancestors. In the 1346 Fasli i.e. 1936 A.D. the Sarfe-Khas Murbarak which was the Department-in-charge of the personal estate of the Nizam of Hyderabad made efforts to acquire the possession of the Bazaar claiming title over it and actually took possession of the same. Under the terms of certain agreements between the Sarfe-Khas and the Municipal Corporation all the Bazaars in the possession of Sarfe-Khas were entrusted to the Corporation on the condition that it should manage them and pay a specified amount to the Sarfe-Khas. The right to recover the tax was transferred from the Bazaarath Department of Sarfe-Khas to the Municipal Corporation but the property remained in the possession of the said Department of the Sarfe-Khas. The plaintiff laid claim with the Sarfe-Khas to the Bazaar and after full inquiry the title was admitted by the Sarfe-Khas Department over the Bazaar and other adjacent property which had been taken possession by the Sarfe-Khas. The latter relinquished its claim to the title of the entire property including the Bazaar and decided to restore the entire property to the plaintiff and pay him the mesne profits in compliance with the order dated 22/05/1950 passed by the Minister concerned. The possession of the entire property to which Sarfe-Khas was claiming title but which actually belonged to the plaintiff including the Bazaar was delivered to him. The defendant was informed by means of a letter dated 17/05/1952 by the Sarfe-Khas about such delivery of possession to the plaintiff which belonged to him. According to the plaintiff the defendant had been obstructing his possession for some time before the institution of the suit and proceedings under S. 107 of the Criminal Procedure Code were also taken against the plaintiff; but the case of the defendant was not accepted in those proceedings. The plaintiff, therefore, claimed a permanent injunction in the terms stated before. The defendant in its written statement denied that the Bazaar was ancestral property of the plaintiff and was owned and possessed by him. It was claimed that the suit land was owned and possessed by the defendant namely, the Municipal Corporation. As regards the judgments passed by the Sarfe-Khas and the order of the Minister it was stated that those were not binding on the defendant as the defendant was not made a party to those proceedings. Reliance was placed, in particular, on a Firman dated the 20/04/1939 issued by the Nizam. It was asserted that the plaintiff had never been given possession of the suit land nor did that land have any concern with the proceeding mentioned in the plaint. In para 6 of the written statement it was averred that the true facts were that in compliance with the Firman mentioned above the City Improvement Board had given the land to the defendant extending from the Muslim Jang Bridge to the old Bridge. It was further stated that the Municipal Corporation had been granted a contract of the Bazaar. Thus it was the Corporation which was the owner and which had been in uninterrupted possession for more than 12 years. In para 8 mention was made of compensation amounts having been paid after due inquiry. It was alleged that Dhan Singh the father of the plaintiff had received compensation for his right of possession. It was mentioned that in 1323 Fasli the Government had decided that the land situated on the bank of the river Musi and extending from Muslim Jang Bridge to Old Bridge should not be used for residential purposes but should be used only for public as playgrounds and parks. The City Improvement Board had, therefore, acquired the land and the house from those who possessed them after payment of compensation. The defendant denied the right of the plaintiff to maintain the suit as no notice had been issued under S. 447 of the Hyderabad Municipal Corporations Act 1950, hereinafter called the 'Corporation Act'.
(3.) ON the pleadings of the parties the following six issues were framed : 1. Is the plaintiff the owner and in possession of the suit land? 2. Has the Municipal Corporation been in possession of the suit land for over twelve years? 3. Is the plaintiff not entitled to sue on the ground that notice as provided by the Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act was not issued? 4. What relief is the plaintiff entitled to ? But on the representation of the defendant the following issues were added on 10-4-1956 by the then Additional Chief Judge, Shri K. Umapathy Rao: 5. Whether the judgments referred to in para 4 of the plaint were delivered by competent authorities and what is their effect on the suit? Are the documents filed by the plaintiff binding and admissible in evidence? 6. It is unfortunate that the trial court gave a painfully rambling judgment on which a great deal of labour was spent but which is hardly of much assistance in analysing the evidence which was of a complicated nature consisting of documents some of which were quite old. In the judgment of the High Court also some of the material points were either decided erroneously or the evidence was not clearly and correctly appraised. ;