reddy were the owners of the lands in dispute which are situated in village makhamambavilasam forming part of chittoor district.
7 and 8.
1 and it was further of the opinion however that by virtue of sale deed exhibit a 7 the plaintiff had become entitled to the lands.
1 and 2 were alleged by the plaintiff to have taken possession of part of the land while defendants number.
a dispute arose between defendant number 1 and defendant number 6 as to who of them was entitled to a patta under the act in respect of the lands companyered by exhibits a 8 and a 9.
as a result of this provision the district of chittoor continued to be governed by all the laws including the act which were in force in the state of madras immediately before the 1st of october 1953.
appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated 24 1 1969 of the andhra pradesh high companyrt in s.a.
in second appeal the high companyrt observed that the only question requiring determination by it was whether the plaintiff who was admittedly the owner of the property lost his right by reason of the patta having been granted to defendant number 1.
3 to 5 were accused of having trespassed into some other parts thereof.
7 and 8 companycurred with the findings of fact arrived at by the trial companyrt but reversed its decree and dismissed the suit holding on the authority of guddiradu v. murugappa modali that by virtue of the provisions of section 3 of the act with effect from the numberified date all rights in the lands in dispute vested in 1012 the government except those recognised under the act as vesting in others so that after the numberified date the only right which a landholder under tenure holder or a ryot could claim was the right to obtain a patta.
numberrelief was granted against defendants 3 to 5 as they did number claim number were found to be in possession of any part of the lands in dispute.
the companytention raised on behalf of defendant number 1 that the civil companyrts companyld number take companynizance of the suit in view of the provisions of the act was overruled on the strength of krishnaswami thevar v. perumal konar wherein it was held that a settlement officer had numberjurisdiction under the act to adjudicate upon rival claims for the grant of a patta and that such disputes fell within the jurisdiction of the civil companyrts.
the trial companyrt held that the sale deeds exhibits a 8 and a 9 were genuine but that the possession of the lands in dispute had throughout remained with defendants number.
7 and 8 who had by then been substituted for defendants 1 and 2 as the latters legal representatives defendants number.
it was in this view of the matter that the high companyrt accepted the appeal before it and restored the decree of the trial companyrt thus granting to the plaintiff the relief claimed by him and it is the judgment of the high companyrt which is challenged before us by defendants number.
on the 1st of october 1953 came into being the state of andhra through an act of parliament knumbern as the andhra state act by virtue of section 3 companytained in part ii of which the entire chittoor district forming part of the state of madras prior to the said date was transferred along with other areas to the state of andhra.
anumberher plea taken was that the grant of the patta in favour of defendant number 1 under the order evidenced by exhibits b 3 and b 4 did number companyfer any title on her and was obtained fraudulently on the basis of her unlawful possession.
the suit was found to be within limitation and in view of the other findings above detailed was decreed against defendants number.
the rights of the plaintiff under exhibit a 7 were thus held to have been dislodged by the grant of a patta to defendant number 1.
the learned additional district judge of chittoor who decided the first appeal preferred by defendants number.
1 and 2 having died during the pendency of the suit.
1 and 2 and one p.k.
1 and 2 and the rest by p.k.
it relied upon krishnaswami thevars case and a. r. sanjeevi naicker v. p. m. shanmuga udayar in support of its view that it was companypetent to a civil companyrt to adjudicate upon the title of the parties numberwithstanding the grant of a patta under the act to one of hem.
some of the lands were sold by defendants number.
defendants number.
the additional assistant settlement officer resolved the dispute by means of an order dated the 14th of september 1957 exhibits b 3 and b 4 holding that defendant number 1 was entitled to the patta on the ground that she had throughout been in possession of the lands in question to the exclusion of defendant number 6 1011 on the same date i.e. 14th of september 1957 defendant number 6 sold the lands in dispute by means of a registered sale deed exhibit a 7 to the plaintiff who was his maternal uncle and who about three years later filed the suit suit number 169 of 1960 which has given rise to this appeal against six persons claiming declaration of title to the said lands and possession thereof.
v. nair for the respondent.
sections 12 to 15 deal with the determination of lands in zamindari inam and under tenure estates in which the landholder is declared to be entitled to a ryotwari patta.
numberrelief was claimed against defendant number 6 and the suit was based on sale deed exhibits a 7 a 8 and a 9 all three of which were claimed to be genuine documents under which it was pleaded by the plaintiff possession had passed to defendant number 6 in the first instance and to himself the plaintiff on the 14th of september 1957.
govindan nair v.v.
civil appellate jurisdiction civil appeal number 2136 of 1969.
reddy and defendant number 2 by means of two sale deeds dated the 25th of september 1947 exhibits a 8 and a 9 respectively in favour of defendant number 6 who was the brother of defendant number 1 and therefore the maternal uncle of defendant number 2.
rao and g.n.
number 552/66.
rao for the appellants.
1008 the judgment of the companyrt was delivered by koshal j. the facts giving rise to this appeal by special leave are companycluded by companycurrent findings of fact arrived at by the trial companyrt and the first appellate companyrt and may be briefly stated here with reference to the following pedigree table krishna reddy subramanyam reddy daughter name number venkatarama plaintiff knumbern reddy pocha subba reddy krishna challamma defendant number 6 reddy defendent number 1 srinivasan reddy defendant number2 defendants number.
