Skip to content


Gutteppa and anr. Vs. Ammaravva and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectProperty
CourtKarnataka High Court
Decided On
Case NumberCivil Revn. Petn. No. 112 of 1958
Judge
Reported inAIR1960Kant211; AIR1960Mys211
ActsHyderabad Land Revenue Act - Sections 99
AppellantGutteppa and anr.
RespondentAmmaravva and ors.
Excerpt:
- [s. abdul nazeer, j.] code of civil procedure, 1908 — order 23 rule 3-b -representative suit — compromise of — leave of the court - the suit in question is a representative suit which comes within the explanation(d) of order 23 rule 3-b of c.p.c. — the explanation to order 23 rule 3-b of cpc explains the meaning of the words ‘representative suit’ employed in sub-rule (1) of order 23 rule 3-b of cpc. explanation (d) of order 23 rule 3-b of cpc states that a representative suit means, any other suit in law in which the decree passed may, by virtue of the provisions of cpc or of any other law for the time being in force, bind any person who is not named as party to the suit. bombay public trust act comes within the expression ‘any other law for..........the learned munsiff do not lay down that the civil courts have no jurisdiction to get the revenue lands measured for the purpose of deciding the dispute between the parties. section 99 of the hyderabad land revenue act which is relied upon by the learned munsiff does not state either expressly or impliedly that the jurisdiction of the civil courts is taken away. the learned munsiff was therefore, entirely wrong in holding that the decision of the revenue authorities fixing up the boundaries of the disputed lands is final and binding on him and that he had no jurisdiction to go into the matter. as a matter of fact the respondents have admitted that the petitioners are the owners of s. nos. 140 and 146 but have denied the fact that the trees the first time to find out whether the trees.....
Judgment:
ORDER

(1) This Revision petition is against the order of the Munsiff, Kushtagi in Civil Suit No. 240/1 of 1957 holding on the first issue that the Court has no jurisdiction to decide the correctness or otherwise of the demarcation of the lands made by the revenue authorities.

(2) The order passed by the learned Munsiff that the Civil Court had no jurisdiction to get the lands in dispute measured and to ascertain on which of the lands the trees in dispute are standing is erroneous. The provisions of the Hyderabad Land Revenue Act relied upon by the learned Munsiff do not lay down that the Civil Courts have no jurisdiction to get the revenue lands measured for the purpose of deciding the dispute between the parties. Section 99 of the Hyderabad Land Revenue Act which is relied upon by the learned Munsiff does not state either expressly or impliedly that the jurisdiction of the Civil courts is taken away. The learned Munsiff was therefore, entirely wrong in holding that the decision of the revenue authorities fixing up the boundaries of the disputed lands is final and binding on him and that he had no jurisdiction to go into the matter. As a matter of fact the respondents have admitted that the petitioners are the owners of S. Nos. 140 and 146 but have denied the fact that the trees the first time to find out whether the trees are actually standing on the lands which admittedly belong to the petitioners that the learned Munsiff had to get those lands measured by a Commissioner. If no such measurement is effected the very object of the suit will be defeated and the Civil judge will not be able to decide the matter. The order passed by the learned Munsiff on Issue No. 1 cannot, therefore be supported and is liable to be set aside.

(3) In the result, therefore, this revision petition is allowed. The order passed by the learned Munsiff holding that he had no jurisdiction to decide the correctness or otherwise of the demarcation of the lands made by the revenue authorities is set aside. The learned Munsiff is directed to proceed with the case after getting the lands measured and ascertain on whose lands the trees in dispute are standing. There will be no order as to costs.

(4) Revision petition allowed.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //