Skip to content


Sri Raja Lanka Venkat Rattamma Garu Vs. Sri Rajah Kandregula Srinivasa Jagannatha Rao Garu - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectProperty
CourtChennai
Decided On
Reported inAIR1935Mad592
AppellantSri Raja Lanka Venkat Rattamma Garu
RespondentSri Rajah Kandregula Srinivasa Jagannatha Rao Garu
Excerpt:
- - on the other hand, it clearly provides that the conclusive presumption can be drawn only subject to modification by a decree of a civil court under the provisions of section 14, and section 14 entitles a party to institute a suit within three years for setting aside or modifying the demarcation and the survey by the survey officer and it provides that the demarcation and the survey should be altered in accordance with the final decree in the suit......the plaint to be returned for presentation to the proper court on the ground that the order of the survey officer was final and conclusive till modified by a decree of court, and that he must therefore find that on the date of suit the lands concerned in the suit were no longer within his jurisdiction. the district judge was of opinion that there was no final decision as regards the boundaries between the two villages as the matter was still under consideration of the government, even when the suit was instituted. he also expressed the opinion that it would be wrong to assume that the survey officer's demarcation is correct in a suit which was expressly brought for the purpose of getting the demarcation set aside. he accordingly held that the subordinate judge's order was wrong and set.....
Judgment:

Pandrang Row, J.

1. This appeal and this re-vision petition arise out of one and the same order of the District Judge of West Godaveri dated 16th January 1931 directing the Subordinate Judge of Narsapur to restore O.S. No. 41 of 1927 to his file and dispose of it according to law. That was a suit instituted for the purpose of obtaining a declaration that a certain block of land shown in the plan is part of the village of Kalipatnam and belongs to the plaintiff, after setting aside the decision to the contrary of the Assistant Director of Survey who had fixed the boundary between the two villages Ghinagallapalam and Kalipatnam as the middle line of the stream or water course known as Uppukalwa. The plaint also contained a prayer for permanent injunction.

2. The Subordinate Judge found that he had no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the suit, and ordered the plaint to be returned for presentation to the proper Court on the ground that the order of the Survey Officer was final and conclusive till modified by a decree of Court, and that he must therefore find that on the date of suit the lands concerned in the suit were no longer within his jurisdiction. The District Judge was of opinion that there was no final decision as regards the boundaries between the two villages as the matter was still under consideration of the Government, even when the suit was instituted. He also expressed the opinion that it would be wrong to assume that the Survey Officer's demarcation is correct in a suit which was expressly brought for the purpose of getting the demarcation set aside. He accordingly held that the Subordinate Judge's order was wrong and set it aside and remanded the suit for disposal on the merits. The present appeal is by defendant 2. The only question is whether the Subordinate Judge of Narsapur has territorial jurisdiction over the lands concerned in the suit. This is a question of fact, and ordinarily the finding of fact by the appellate Court is final. This however is of little importance because there is a revision petition filed, and the question of jurisdiction has to be decided even if a second appeal does not lie.

3. It is conceded that, but for the demarcation by the Survey Officer, which is objected to in the suit, the suit lands form part of the village of Kalipatnam which is admittedly within the territorial jurisdiction of the Subordinate Judge of Narsapur. It is the Survey Officer's demarcation that is being sought to be set aside in the present suit, and the plaintiff's case is, and must be in the nature of things, that the demarcation by the Survey Officer is wrong. He cannot therefore institute the suit in a Court which according to his case has no territorial jurisdiction. Section 13, Survey and Boundaries Act, does not say that the Survey Officer's decision is final or conclusive even in a, suit which is instituted for the purpose of modifying or for setting it aside. On the other hand, it clearly provides that the conclusive presumption can be drawn only subject to modification by a decree of a civil Court under the provisions of Section 14, and Section 14 entitles a party to institute a suit within three years for setting aside or modifying the demarcation and the survey by the Survey Officer and it provides that the demarcation and the survey should be altered in accordance with the final decree in the suit. It is therefore clear from a consideration of these two sections that in a suit instituted for the purpose of setting aside or modifying the order of demarcation made by the Survey Officer, the Court is not bound to treat the survey or the demarcation as conclusive or final, whether it be for the purpose of deciding the question of territorial jurisdiction or for the purpose of deciding the correctness of the demarcatiod or survey on the merits. I am of opinion that the order appealed from is right; the appeal and the revision petition are dismissed. The respondents costs in the appeal shall be paid by the appellant.


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