The High Court has also made certain directions while disposing of the Second Appeal.
Those Writ Petitions, and thereafter the Writ Appeals, were dismissed.
In the Second Appeal the High Court has held that the Civil Court had numberjurisdiction to entertain the suit and grant injunction in favour of the Appellant Plaintiff, in view of the provisions of Section 16 of the Andhra Pradesh Tenancy Act, 1956.
The claim of the Appellant Plaintiff was challenged by the respondent tenant who disputed the truthfulness of the allegations made in the plaint and pleaded that in fact he had restored possession of the suit land on 5.10.1976 as per the Sub Collectors direction in T.A.No.2/74.
The suit for permanent injunction was decreed by the learned District Munif who recorded a finding of fact that on 18.1.1974 the Appellant had been put in possession of the land in question and that he had number been 5/ 5 dispossessed on 5.10.1976 as companytended by the defendant.
The appellate authority directed restitution and therefore, an order was passed for putting the respondent in possession of the suit land pursuant to the appellate authoritys order dismissing the application for eviction of the respondent.
Ultimately the 3/ 3 Eviction Petition was allowed and the Respondent tenant was directed to be evicted.
He also challenged, by a Writ Petition, the order of the Sub Collector remanding the matter for fresh disposal and 4/ 4 ordering that the possession of the land be restored to the tenant.
The respondent defendant preferred a Second Appeal before the High Court in which the impugned judgment has been passed.
The Appellant obtained an interim stay but subsequently the same was vacated on 30th November, 1976.
It was only thereafter that the Appellant filed a suit for permanent injunction for restraining the respondent tenant from interfering with his possession, which he had secured pursuant to an order of eviction which was set aside in appeal.
The matter was remanded to the Tehsildar for disposal afresh.
The appellant filed a petition A.T.P.No.21 of 1973 under the Andhra Pradesh Tenancy Act, 1956 before the Tenancy Tehsildar, Ramachandrapuram for eviction of the respondent alleging that the respondent tenant had companymitted default in payment of rent and therefore, was liable to be evicted.
While allowing the appeal the Sub Collector ordered that the possession of the land should be restored to the tenant namely the Respondent.
A Receiver was appointed in that proceeding who took possession of the land.
While the appeal was pending the Appellant filed Execution Petition No.1 of 1974 before the Tehsildar and obtained delivery of possession of the suit land on 18.1.1974.
Thereafter, the Appellant filed Original Suit No.84 of 1977 in the Court of Principal District Munsif, Ramachandrapuram for a permanent injunction restraining the defendant tenant from interfering with his possession of the land.
Before appreciating the rival submissions, we may numberice very briefly the facts of the case relevant for the disposal of these Appeals by special leave.
While the matter stood thus, the Appellant filed a Writ Petition challenging the order directing re delivery of possession of the land to the tenant respondent.
A Writ Appeal was preferred by the Appellant but ultimately the same was dismissed.
Ultimately, the T.A.No.2 of 1974 filed by the respondent was allowed on 7.6.1976 and the order of eviction was set aside.
The Appellant sought to challenge the orders by filing Writ Petitions before the High Court.
The High Court, by its impugned Judgment and Order, allowed the Second Appeal and dismissed the plaintiffs suit for permanent injunction setting aside the Judgment and Decree passed by the Principal District Munsif, Ramachandrapuram dated 9.3.1981 2/ 2 and affirmed by the Subordinate Judge, Ramachandrapuram by judgment dated 29th June, 1987.
It was held that in view of the jural relationship between the plaintiff and defendant with respect to suit land, such a dispute companyld number be brought before the Civil Court.
The suit was based primarily on the fact that the Appellant was in possession of the said property since 18.1.1974 pursuant to an Order passed in E.P. No.1/74 in A.T.P.No.21/73.
The case of the Appellant was that he had leased out the said land to the defendant respondent under an agreement dated 21.12.1967 for a period of 5 years on certain terms and companyditions.
Against the order of eviction the respondent preferred A.No.2 of 1974 before the Sub Collector, Rajahmundry.
The respondent moved for delivery of possession pursuant to the Appellate Courts Order and the Tehsildar, by his Order dated 4.10.1976, directed the Revenue Inspector to take possession of the land in question and handover the same to the respondent.
WITH CIVIL APPEAL NOS.
It was further held that the Courts below failed to companyprehend that the Appellant plaintiffs companytinued possession was number lawful and in fact amounted to wrongful possession of the land as he retained the same in disregard of the lawful order of the Sub Collector which was companyfirmed by the High Court by dismissal of his Writ Petition and Writ Appeal.
6894 6895 OF 1999 P.SINGH, J. These Appeals by the Plaintiff are directed against the Judgment and Order of the High Court of Judicature of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad dated September 21, 1998 in Second Appeal No.399 of 1989.
The Appellant herein who was the plaintiff is the owner of the suit property companysisting of companyonut garden in R.S. No.103 measuring about 16.93 1/2 acres and a vacant land measuring 38 cents in S.No.107/1 of Village Serilanka in Ramachandrapuram Taluk, East Godavari District.
The said finding was affirmed by the Appellate Court.
