DHULLPALLA RAMAYYA Vs. KOTA BRAHMAYYA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision is directed against the finding of the Additional District Munsif, Nellore on a preliminary issue in O.S. 412 of 1951 on his file, by which he negatived the 1st defendant's contention that the Civil Court has no jurisdiction to try the suit. The 1st respondent -plaintiff brought the suit for partition and recovery of possession of his one -third share in the plaint lands and for other incidental reliefs. His case is that he and defendants 1 to 5 are joint shrotriumdars of Kuricherlapad, shrotrium, that he owns 4 -12th share in the shrotrium, that the 1st defendant is entitled to l/12th share and the defendants 2 and 3 to 4/12th share and defendants 4 and 5 to the remaining 3/12th share, that the two items of plaint lands consisting of survey Nos. 160 and 181 were 'anadhinam' lands, that S. No. 100 was progressively re -claimed at She Joint expense of all the shrotriumdars between 1940 and 1949 and that Survey No. 161 was similarly re -claimed, by all of them between 1945 and 949.

(2.) SRI M.S. Ramachandra Rao, the learned counsel for the petitioner, argued that the plaintiffs case is that the suit lands are private lands and that the dispute in the suit resolves itself to a determination of the question whether the suit lands are private lands or ryoti lands. But he has been unable to show how on the plaint allegations, the suit lands can possibly be said to be private lands, as defined in S. 3 (10) of the Madras Estates Land Act, cl. (b) of which is the relevant clause. According to the plaint, they were merely 'Anadhinam' or 'unoccupied' lands which were brought under cultivation between 1940 and 1949.

(3.) THE next submission of Sri M. S. Ramachandra Rao is that under S. 15 of Act 26 of 1948 the Settlement Officer is charged with the duty of examining the nature and history of all the lands in respect of which the landholder claims a ryotwari patta under Ss. 12, 13 and 14 and of deciding in respect of which lands the claim should be allowed. He contends that the jurisdiction of Civil Courts is impliedly barred in respect of such lands when the claim involves, as here, the grant of a ryotwari patta under S. 13.