VADDI AYYANNA Vs. GOVINDALURI SURYANARAYANAMURTHY
LAWS(APH)-1955-11-3
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
Decided on November 04,1955

VADDI AYYANNA Appellant
VERSUS
GOVINDALURI SURYANARAYANAMURTHY Respondents

JUDGEMENT

- (1.)THIS is an application to revise the order of the learned District Munsif of Rajahmundry recording a finding on issue No. 5. The suit was filed by the plaintiff for possession of the plaint schedule lands after ejecting the defendants therefrom. In O.S. No. 38 of 1940 on the file of the District Munsif's Court, Rajahmundry, an ex parte decree was obtained as against the petitioner for recovery of possession and the respondents executed the decree and obtained delivery of possession. In the plaint it is alleged that the ex parte decree is null and void as the suit lands are situate in Jagannadhapuram agraharam which has been held to be an inam estate under the provisions of the Madras Act XXVI of 1948. The case of the plaintiff is that he is entitled to ignore the ex parte decree on the ground that it is a nullity.
(2.)THE Court below held that as he is a party eo nomine to the ex parle decree and as the decree would be void only on proof that the village is an estate, it is necessary that the plaintiff should pay Court-fee under section 7 (iv-A) and that he should also pray for setting aside the ex parle decree. Various issues are raised between the parties as to whether the village is an estate, whether it was duly abolished and converted into ryotwari land and whether the decree is a nullity and can be ignored. As those issues are still to be tried, I do not wish to make any observations so as to prejudice the trial of these issues. I have no doubt that when O.S. No. 38 of 1940 was instituted on the allegation that Jagannadhapuram was a hamlet and consequently not an estate, the Court had jurisdiction to try the suit. THE petitioner who is a party to that decree has to specifically pray for setting aside that decree and pay Court-fee under section 7, (iv-A). It may be open to him to show that the village is an inam estate and that the Court had no jurisdiction to entertain the suit. As stated already, those issues are still to be tried. I am not prepared to accept the contention of Sri Ramanuj achary that as the notification had been issued, I must assume that the village is an estate and that the ex partc decree is a nullity. THE order passed by the Court calling upon him to pay Court-fee under section 7 (iv-A) is perfectly right. I grant three months' time to the petitioner for paying the Court-fee. THE Civil Revision Petition fails and is dismissed with costs of the Respondents. Petition dismissed.
;


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