It may be mentioned that respondents are transferees from the Rani of Tuni, tie wife of Zamindar.
249, 251 and 253 of 1951 on April 14, 1955 against the appellants for recovering actual possession of the land in the Court of the District Munsiff Kakinada.
96, 97 and 98 of 1957 preferred by the present appellant an application for amendment of the written statements was moved seeking to raise a companytention that the Civil Court had numberjurisdiction to entertain the suits for the reasons hereinabove mentioned.
The suits were companytested by the appellants on diverse grounds but only one companytention survives for our companysideration.
The area companyered by the deed of companyveyance in favour of respondents admeasured 133 acres which included 54 acres of land involved in the present appeals.
On remand the appeals of the appellants were dismissed and after unsuccessful appeals in the High Court they approached this Court under Article 136 of the Constitution.
On the introduction of the Madras Estates Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari Act XXVI of 1948, later styled as Andhra Pradesh Andhra Area Estates Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwarl Act 1948 1948 Act for short , the estate vested in the State and the question arose as to who between the appellant and the respondent is the lawful ryot in respect of the holding.
249 of 1951 was disposed of by a. companypromise between the parties and it is numbermore the subject matter of dispute in these two appeals.
There was a Zamindari Estate styled as Kottam Tuni Estate situated in Andhra Pradesh.
The companytention as to want of jurisdiction found favour with the appellate Court.
Accordingly appeals preferred by the appellants were allowed and the plaints in the suits filed by the respondents were ordered to be returned for presentation to the proper Court.
The respondents filed three separate suits being O.S. Nos.
It may at once be mentioned that the companytention as to want of jurisdiction was number raised in the written statement filed in the trial Court.
The Zamindar inducted the Rani of Tuni, wife of the Zamindar as tenant of the lands which are the subject matter of these two appeals, in the year 1951 Appellants are described as sub tenants inducted on the land by the head tenant and are personally cultivating the same 2nd for long have been in undisturbed possession of the same.
Hence these appeals by special leave.
In the first appeals A. S. Nos.
Applications for amendment were granted.
The respondents sought actual possession from the appellants alleging that they were the sub tenant, the head tenant being Rani of Tuni wife of the erstwhile Zamindar and as transferees front the head tenant they were entitled to recover actual possession from sub tenants who had numberright to companytinue in possession as against the respondent.
The respondents preferred appeals to the High Court of Andhra Pradesh.
The view of the Andhra Pradesh High Court at that time was that the Civil Court had jurisdiction to entertain the suits more particularly where the prayers in the suits were for a decree for possession and mesne profits and accordingly the appeals were allowed and the judgment of the first appellate Court was set aside and the matter was remitted to the first appellate Court for disposal of appeals on merits.
A few facts leading to the present appeals may be briefly stated.
A. Desai, J. These two appeals by Special Leave arise from the decision rendered by the High Court of Andhra Pradesh dismissing the appeals preferred by the present appellants.
