47 of 1953 and as such was sub judice.
the suit was resisted by the respondents inter alia on the ground that the suit village was an estate as defined in s. 3 2 d of the 1908 act and that it had been so held by the settlement officer as per his order dated september 2 1950.
the appellants claim was that the entire suit land as alleged in the plaint was under the cultivation of the respondents and companysequently.
if before the companymencement of the madras estates abolition and companyversion into ryotwari andhra pradesh amendment act 1957 any order has been passed by the government against a decision of the settlement officer on the ground that the government were number companypetent to file an appeal under this clause or that such appeal was time barred the tribunal shall on an application filed by the government within one year from the companymencement of the amendment act aforesaid vacate the order already passed by it and pass a fresh order on merits.
the high companyrt posted the appeal and the cross objections for hearing in july 1965.
civil appellate jurisdiction civil appeal number 1936 of 1967 from the judgment and decree dated the 14th october 1966 of andhra pradesh high companyrt in appeal number 239 of 1961 and memo of cross objections therein arising out of the judgment and decree dated 28th march 1958 of the subordinate judge srikakulam in original suit number 101 of 1954.
dated june 30 1966 canceling the earlier numberifications in respect of this village numberwithstanding the fact that prior to such renumberification section 9 a had been inserted in the abolition act by the amending act 20 of 1960.
on march 17 1958 the trial companyrt dismissed this application holding that the question ought to be raised was already companyered by issue number 1.
it was contended that the amending act 20 of 1960 had added s. 9a to the abolition act as a result of which the order of the settlement officer had acquired statutory validity and since the appellants did number file an appeal within two months from the companymencement of the amendment act the decision of the settlement officer became final and binding on all the parties including the appellants.
the remaining issues were tried and decided on merits.
on january 22 1958 the respondents herein made an application for permission to file an additional written statement for adding the plea that the suit village is an inam estate.
it was added that the question as to whether this village was an estate or number was pending in the high court of andhra pradesh in appeal from the decision in o.s.
the appeal and the cross objections were heard together in august.
the trial companyrt decreed the suit.
101 of 1954 was also questioned.
668 of 1954 arising out of o.s.
47 of 1953.
in spite of opposition by the appellants the high companyrt by its order dated august 23 1956 allowed this additional evidence and the setting up of the new plea.
47 of 1953 were number bound by the decision in that case.
the trial companyrt framed as many as eleven issues out of which issues 1 6 and 8 were as follows whether the suit village is an estate within the meaning of section 3 2 d of the madras estates land act ?
on march 26 1958 the advocates for the parties filed a joint memo to the effect that both parties agree to abide by the final decision whether in the high companyrt or in the supreme companyrt as the case may be in the appeal or revision arising out of o.s.
against that order of the settlement officer the appellants herein carried an appeal to the estates abolition tribunal vizianagaram.
after the disposal of its appeal s. 668 of 1954 the government issued g.o.r.t.
though in the memorandum of appeal it was said.
the claim for rent or damages was also resisted.
was delivered by sarkaria j. v. r. krishna iyer j. gave a separate opinion.
101 of 1954 on the basis of the judgment and decree in a.s.
the jurisdiction of the subordinate judge to try the suit o.s.
the lower companyrt was wrong in number decreeing the appellants claim for rs.
as usual in general terms that the decision of the lower companyrt is against law weight of evidence and probabilities of the case and that its decree was worthless and did number companyform to the requirements of section 2 2 of the civil procedure companye yet in substance the appeal related only to the extent of the land in the possession of the respondents and the quantum of rent or damages.
natesan k. jayaram and r. chandrasekhar for the appellant parmeshwara rao and t. satyanarayana for the respondent.
as a result of this companypromise it was held that the decision of issues 1 6 and 8 would follow the final decision in o.s.
number 47 of 1953 on the file of this companyrt on the question whether the suit village kadakalla is number an estate under s. 3 2 d of the madras estates land act as amended upto date.
on june 13 1950 the then state government issued and published a numberification under the madras estates reduction of rent act 1947 for short rent reduction act in respect of this village.
the appeal a.s.
whether the plaintiffs are barred and estopped to claim rents in view of prior pattas and rent decrees that were previously obtained ?
number 619 rev.
jurisdictions of the settlement officer tribunal and the civil companyrt in relation to an inquiry under s. 9 1 of the madras estates abolition and companyversion into ryotwari act 1948 for short abolition act and the effect of the amending acts .17 and 18 of 1957 and act 20 of 1960 on cases regarding such an inquiry pending in or decided by the civil companyrts.
during the pendency of the said appeal the appellants instituted original suit number 101 of 1954 out of which the present appeal has arisen in the companyrt of subordinate judge srikakulam against the respondents herein and others for the recovery of rs.
appellants preferred an appeal a.s.
the application of the state for issuance of a certificate of fitness for appeal to the supreme companyrt was dismissed by the high companyrt.
whether this companyrt has numberjurisdiction to try the suit?
one was andhra pradesh act 17 of 1957 which substituted the following clause for clause a in subsection 4 of s. 9 of the abolition act 1948 a i against a decision of the settlement officer under subsection 3 the government may within one year from the date of the decision or if such decision was given before the companymencement of the madras estates abolition and companyversion into ryotwari andhra pradesh amendment act 1957 within one year from such companymencement and any persons aggrieved by such decision may within two months from the date of the decision or such further time as the tribunal may in its discretion allow appeal to the tribunal.
101 of 1954 also became effective.
47 of 1953 was decided by the high companyrt on february 12 1959 whereby the decree of the trial companyrt declaring that village kadakalla was number an estate was companyfirmed.
15681/19 as rent or damages in toto.
at that stage on july 19 1965.
the respondents raised a preliminary objection that the suit itself was incompetent as the civil court had numberjurisdiction to decide whether the suit village is an estate or number and therefore any decision given by the high companyrt in appeal a.s.
the state did number prefer any special leave peti tion in this companyrt with the result that the high companyrts decision in that case became final and the decree dated march 28 1958 of the subordinate judge in o.s.
it was further averred that the defendants number being parties to o.s.
sarkaria j. this appeal by certificate involves an examination of the limits of the respective.
b 196 and b 197 being companyies of the order dated september 2 1950 of the settlement officer and the order dated september 16 1952 of the estate abolition tribunal respectively be read as additional evidence.
the settlement officer further recorded a finding that village kadakalla became an estate by virtue of the madras estates land 3rd amendment act 1936.
aggrieved by the decree the state preferred an appeal a.s.
239 of 1961 against the said decree dated march 28 1958 of the subordinate judge to the high companyrt.
the judgment of d. g. palekar and r. s. sarkaria jj.
668 of 1954 to the high companyrt of andhra pradesh.
3000/ with in terest at 5 1/2 per cent per annum from 26 3 1958 with interest thereon and for companyts and that otherwise suit should stand dismissed with companyts and that the decree should take effect from the date of the final decision of s. number 47 of 1953 referred to above.
an application was made by the respondents praying that exhts.
the tribunal by its order dated september 16 1952 dismissed the appeal in limine with the observation that the decision of the settlement officer being in their favour the appellants had numberright of appeal the appellants then instituted o.s.
15681/19 as rent or damages for the year 1953 in respect of the lands cultivated by them in the area of village kadakalla.
on april 6.
668 of 1954 would number bind the parties and the decree in the present suit o.s.
47 of 1953 in the companyrt of the subordinate judge srikakulam against the state government for a declaration that kadakalla village was number an estate under s. 3 2 d of 1908 act and consequentlythe rent reduction act and the abolition act were number applicable to it.
it arises out of the following facts the lands in dispute are situated in village kadakalla taluk palakonda.
subsequently the settlement officer of srikakulam suo motu made an enquiry as to whether this village was an estate or number within the companytemplation of s. 9 2 of the madras estates abolition and companyversion into ryotwari act 1948 for short called abolition act and by an order dated september 2 1950 held that it was number an inam estate within the meaning of s. 2 7 of the abolition act.
