N. PADMAMMA & ORS.versusS. RAMAKRISHNA REDDY & ORS.

                  [2014) 10 S.C.R. 641


                 N. PADMAMMA & ORS.                            A
                             v.
            S. RAMAKRISHNA REDDY & ORS.
              (Civil Appeal No. 3632 of 2008)
                  SEPTEMBER 23, 2014
                                                               B
           [T.S. THAKUR, C. NAGAPPAN AND
               ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, JJ.]

    Partition: Suit for partition - Maintainability of - Whether
a suit for partition for division of respective shares amongst C
the members of a joint family is maintainable, when in respect
of some of the lands, occupancy right has been granted in
favour of one of them in terms of the provisions of the Act of
1955 - Held: lnam lands granted in favour of one of the heir
upon abolition of the inam under the Act of 1955 are partiable D
among the co-heirs - Suit for partition is maintainable -
Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Abolition of lnams Act,
1955.

    Partition: Possession of a co-heir - Held: Is treated as   E
possession of all the co-heirs.

    Allowing the appeal, the Court

     HELD: 1. As per Section 3 of the Andhra Pradesh
(Telangana Area) Abolition of lnams Act, 1955, all inam F
lands stood vested in the State of Andhra Pradesh with
effect from 20th July, 1955, the date when the Act came
into force. The inam land in dispute had continued to be
in possession of the father of the parties 'RR' till his
demise in the year 1968 whereupon the rights and G
privileges in regard to the same including those that
would have entitled father of the parties to claim
occupancy rights under the Act on account of his being
in cultivating occupation of the land on the date of the
                            641                                H
    642     SUPREME COURT REPORTS            [2014] 10 S.C.R.


A   vesting were inherited by his legal heirs. Respondent
    No.1 was the only male member in the family left behind
    by the deceased. Any recognition of his being in
    possession and personal cultivation of the land held by
    his father was, in the absence of any plea or proof of
B   ouster, to be taken as cultivation on behalf of the entire
    family, and not in his individual capacity. Grant of
    occupancy rights to Respondent No.1 as the only male
    member of the family, could not result in the extinction
    of the rights of the appellants who had an equal claim in
c   no way inferior to that of respondent No.1 to succeed to
    estate left behind by the deceased including succession
    to all such rights that may have been inchoate on the date
    of the demise of his father but as could result in a
    beneficial grant in his favour based on his being an
    lnamdar. [para 1O] [650-F-H; 651-A-E]
0
       2. It is fairly well settled principle of law that the
  possession of a co-heir is in law treated as possession
  of all the co-heirs. If one co-heir has come in possession
  of the properties, it is presumed to be on the basis of a
E joint title. A co-heir in possession cannot render its
  possession adverse to other co-heirs not in possession,
  merely by any secret hostile animus on his own part, in
  derogation of the title of his other co-heirs. Ouster of the
  other co-heirs must be evidenced by hostile title coupled
F by exclusive possession and enjoyment of one of them
  to the knowledge of the other. lnam lands granted in
  favour of respondent no.1 upon abolition of the inam
  under the Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Abolition of
  lnams Act, 1955 are, therefore, partiable among the heirs
G left behind by 'RR'. [paras 11, 17] [652-B-D; 656-A-B]

        P. Lakshmi Reddy v. L. Lakshmi Reddy AIR 1957 SC
    314:1957 SCR 195; Bhubaneshwar Prasad Narain Singh
    and Ors. v. Sidheswar Mukherjee and Ors. (1971) 1 SCC 556;
    Kalgonda Babgonda Patil v. Balgonda Kalgonda Patil and
H
    N. PADMAMMA v. S. RAMAKRISHNA REDDY                    643


Ors. 1989 Supp (1) SCC 246; Shivappa Tammannappa                  A
Karaban v. Parasappa Hanammappa Kuraban and Ors. 1995
Supp (1) sec 162: 1994 (3) Suppl. SCR 762 - relied on.

     N. Padmamma and Ors. v. S. Ramakrishna Reddy and
Ors. (2008) 15 SCC 517: 2008 (9) SCR 535 - referred to.           B

    Corea v. Appuhamy 1912 AC 230 - referred to.

     Lokraj and Ors. v. Kishan Lal and Ors. (1995) 3 SCC
291 :1995 (1) SCR 193 - disapproved.
                     Case Law Reference:
                                                                  c
    2008 (9) SCR 535              referred to       Para 1
    1912 AC 230                   referred to       Para 11
    1957 SCR 195                  relied on         Para 11       D
     (1971) 1 sec 556             relied on         Para 12
    1989 Supp (1) sec 246         relied on         Para 13
    1994 (3) Suppl. SCR 762       relied on         Para 14       E
    1995 (1) SCR 193              disapproved       Para 15
    CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No.
3632 of 2008.

    From the Judgment and order dated 11.08.2006 in LPA           F
No. 3/1993 of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad.

    Rakesh Dwivedi, Sridhar Potaraju, Y. Srinivas Murthy, Arjun
Singh for the Appellants.
                                                                  G
    P.P. Rao, P. Vishwanath Shetty, D. Ramakrishna Reddy,
D. Bharathi Reddy for the Respondents.

    The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

                                                                  H
    644       SUPREME COURT REPORTS                [2014] 10 S.C.R.


A       T.S. THAKUR, J. 1. This appeal has been placed before
  this larger bench pursuant to a reference made by a Division
  Bench of this Court comprising S.B. Sinha and Lokeshwar
  Singh Panta, JJ. The reference Order reported in N.
  Padmamma and Ors. v. S. Ramakrishna Reddy and Ors.
B (2008) 15 SCC 517 formulates the following question for
  determination:

          "Whether the civil court has jurisdiction to entertain a suit
          for partition for division of respective shares amongst the
          members of a joint family, when in respect of some of the
c         lands, occupancy right has been granted in favour of one
          of them in terms of the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh
          (Telangana Area) Abolition of lnams Act, 1955 (for short
          "the Act'J is the question involved herein."

D        2. We may before adverting to the precise question and
    the rival contentions urged before us, briefly recapitulate the
    facts:

       3. S. Ramakrishna Reddy original owner was survived by
E his sons, namely, S. Ramachandra Reddy and S. Anantharam
  Reddy. The former passed away in the year 1968 leaving
  behind two wives, two daughters and a son. In this appeal the
  two wives and their children are pitted against each other. While
  the appellants-plaintiffs in this appeal are the first wife and her
F daughter, the defendants-respondents are the son, second wife
  and the daughter left behind by 'lls· deceased.

        4. Civil Suit No.933 of 1981 filed by the plaintiffs
  (appellants herein) before the II Additional Judge, City Civil
  Court, Hyderabad, sought a decree for partition of the property
G left behind by S.Ramachandra Reddy by metes and bounds.
  The plaint inter alia, stated that Ramchandra Reddy and his
  brother late Anantharam Reddy had acquired several items of
  immovable properties including agricultural land admeasuring
  26 acres, 37 guntas, residential house bearing M.C.H No.2-2-
H 977 and Mulgi M.C.H. No.2-2-1010 situate at Bagh Amberpet,
    N. PADMAMMA v. S. RAMAKRISHNA REDDY                    645
              [T.S. THAKUR, J.]
Musheerabad Taluka of Hyderabad district. In the partition        A
between the two brothers, the suit schedule properties fell to
the share of Ramachandra Reddy. The plaintiff's case was that
after the death of Ramachandra Reddy, the parties continued
to jointly own and possess the properties in dispute and being
self-acquired property of Ramachandra Reddy, each one of the      B
five heirs were entitled to 1/5th share in the same.

     5. The suit was contested by the defendants-respondents,
inter alia, alleging that agricultural lands covered by Surveys
No. 21 to 28 were inams lands which were acquired by the
grandfather of defendant-respondent no.1 and enjoyed by him       C
as holder by paying land revenue. It was further alleged that
upon a partition between late Shri Anantharam
Reddy and S. Ramakrishan Reddy that took place in the year
1960 land underlying Survey Nos.21-28 and house bearing
M.C.H No.2-2-977 and Mulgi M.C.H. No.2-2-1010 situate at          D
Bagh Amberpet, Musheerabad Taluka of Hyderabad district
was allotted in favour of Ramchandra Reddy after whose death
defendant no.1 came in possession of the said properties.
Defendant no.1 also claimed to have constructed a new house
after demolition of the old. Besides, he acquired occupancy       E
rights in respect of Survey Nos.21-28 under the Andhra
Pradesh (Telangana Area) Abolition of lnams Act, 1955
mentioned earlier. The defendant's case, therefore, was that
he had by reason of the grant of occupancy rights in his favour
become the absolute owner and occupant of the inams lands         F
underlying Survey Nos.21-28 in which the plaintiffs could claim
no share. It was also alleged that agricultural land covered by
Survey Nos.282/1, 283/1, 283/2, 283/3, and 284 measuring 5
acres and 16 guntas was purchased to the extent of 1/2 by
defendant no.1 with the help of money which defendant no.1 's     G
grandmother had provided for that purpose. Defendant no.1
was, therefore, the absolute owner of the said property
comprising items 9-13 of plaint 'A' schedule.

    6. The Trial Court framed as many as six issues and by
                                                                  H
    646       SUPREME COURT REPORTS                  [2014] 10 S.C.R.


A its judgment and order dated 24th April, 1989 decreed the suit
  in part. The Trial Court held that defendant no.1 was the
  absolute owner of property covered by Survey Nos.21-28
  mentioned above but had failed to establish that he was the
  absolute owner of the property covered by item 9-14 on the
B basis of the instrument of sale in his favour. The said properties
  were held by the Trial Court to be joint family properties
  partitioned. The Trial Court further held that the plaintiffs-
  appellants were entitled to 1/5th share only in Schedule 'B' and
  'C' properties.
c       7. Aggrieved by the judgment and order passed by the
  Trial Court the respondents filed C.C.C. Appeal No.94of1989
  to which the appellants filed cross-objections. The appeal and
  the cross-objections were both heard and disposed of by a
  Single Judge of the High Court with the modification that the
D plaintiffs will be entitled to 3/8th share in the property held jointly
  among the parties. The claim for allotment of a share in the
  inam lands over which defendant no.1 had acquired occupancy
  rights was held untenable as the grant of such occupancy rights
  was in favour of defendant no.1 in his individual capacity and
E not as a member of the joint family. The Single Judge observed:

          "In view of the decision of the Supreme Court in Laxman
          Ambaji's case referred to above, I agree with the
          contention of the leaned counsel for the appellant/1st
F         defendant that in so far as sec. 8 of the Act, the date of
          vesting should taken as 1-11-1073 and since the first
          defendant is registered as an occupant of the land, he
          does so in his individual capacity and not as a member
          of the joint family and so, the lower court is right in
          dismissing the plaintiff's claim as regards these items of
G
          property."

         8. The matter was then brought up before a Division Bench
    of the High Court in Letters Patent Appeal No.3 of 1993 filed
    by the appellants which appeal also failed and was dismissed
H
    N. PADMAMMA v. S. RAMAKRISHNA REDDY                        647
              [T.S. THAKUR, J.]
by the Division Bench in terms of its order dated 11th August,         A
2006. The Division Bench of the High Court affirmed the finding
recorded by the Trial Court and the Single Judge that defendant
r:•o.1 (respondent herein) had failed to prove the alleged
relinquishment by the plaintiffs of their share in items 7 and 8
of plaint 'A' schedule property and plaint 'B' and 'C' properties.     B
As regards items 9 to 14 of plaint 'A' Schedule property also
the Division Bench affirmed the findings of the Courts below
that defendant no.1 was not the absolute owner of the property
even when the same had been purchased in his name as the
sale consideration came from out of the joint family funds.            c
Defendant No.1 was, in any case, a minor who had no income
of his own. The story that his grandmother had contributed
money for the purchase of said items of property was
disbelieved by all the three Courts and the claim of exclusive
ownership over the said property rejected. More importantly, the       D
Division Bench while affirming the view taken by the Single
Judge held that the grant of occupancy rights in favour of
defendant no.1 was in his individual capacity as the occupant
of the land in question.

     9. While we have given the factual contours of the case in        E
the above paragraphs, we must make it clear that none of the
findings recorded by the Courts below are under challenge
before us except the ones that relate to the question whether
grant of occupancy rights in favour of respondent No.1 was in
his individual capacity to the exclusion of the other members          F
of the family so as to deny to the plaintiffs-appellants their share
in the said property. For a proper determination of that
question, it is necessary to extract Sections 3, 8, 10, 24 and
29 of the Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Abolition of lnams
Act, 1955 that came into force on 20th July, 1955, which are           G
as under:

       "3. Abolition and vesting of inams and the
     consequences thereof-(1) Notwithstanding anything to
     the contrary contained in any usage, settlement, contract,
                                                                       H
    648         SUPREME COURT REPORTS             [2014] 10 S.C.R.


A         grant, sanad, order or other instrument, Act, regulation,
          rules or order having the force of law and notwithstanding
          any judgment, decree or order of a Civil, Revenue or
          Atiyat Court, and with effect from the date of vesting, all
          inams shall be deemed to have been abolished and shall
B         vest in the State.

          (2) Save as expressly provided by or under the provisions
          of this Act and with effect from the date of vesting the
          following consequences shall ensue, namely:

c         (a)    *                    *                 *

          (b) all rights, title and interest vesting in the inamdar,
          kabiz-e-kadim, permanent tenant, protected tenant and
          non-protected tenant in respect of the inam land, other
D         than the interest expressly saved by or under provisions
          of this Act and including those in all communal lands,
          cultivated and uncultivated lands (whether assessed or
          not), waste lands, pasture lands, forests, mines and
          minerals, quarries, rivers and streams, tanks and
          irrigation works, fisheries and ferries shall cease and be
E
          vested absolutely in the State free from all
          encumbrances;

          (c)-(f) *                   *                 *

F         (g) the inamdar and any other person whose rights have
          vested in the State under clause (b) shall be entitled only
          to compensation from the Government as provided for
          in this Act;

          (h) the relationship with regard to inam land as between
G         the inamdar and kabiz-e-kadim, permanent tenant,
          protected tenant or non-protected tenant shall be
          extinguished;

          (i)    *                    *                 *
H
N. PADMAMMA v. S. RAMAKRISHNA REDDY                    649
          [T.S. THAKUR, J.]
(3)   *                     *                 *               A

8. Registration of non-protected tenant as occupant.-(1)
Every non-protected tenant shall, with effect from the date
of vesting subject to Section 37 of the Andhra Pradesh
(Telangana Area) Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act,
                                                              B
1950 (21 of 1950) be entitled to be registered as an
occupant of such inam lands in his possession as may
be left over after the allotment under Section 4 which,
immediately before the date of vesting were under his
personal cultivation and which together with any lands he     C
separately owns and cultivates personally, are equal to
four and a half times the family holding.

(2) The non-protected tenant shall be entitled to
compensation from the Government as provided for
under this Act in respect of inam lands in his possession     D
in excess of the limit prescribed in sub-section (1)
whether cultivated or not.

(3) No non-protected tenant shall be registered as an
occupant of any land under sub-section (1) unless he          E
pays to the Government as premium an amount equal
to sixty times the land revenue for dry land and twenty
times for wet land. The amount of premium shall be
payable in not more than ten annual instalments along
with the annual land revenue and in default of such
payment, shall be recoverable as arrears of land revenue      F
due on ·the land in respect of which it is payable.

*     *

10. Enquiry by Collector in certain cases.-The Collector      G
shall examine the nature and history of all lands in
respect of which an inamdar, kabiz-e-kadim, permanent
tenant, protected tenant or non-protected tenant, claims
to be registered as an occupant under Sections 4, 5, 6,
7 and 8 as the case may be, and decide-
                                                              H
    650       SUPREME COURT REPORTS               [2014] 10 S.C.R.


A         (a) in whose favour, and in respect of which inam lands,
          the claims should be allowed;

          (b) the land revenue and the premium payable in respect
          of such lands.
B         24. Appeals from orders under Section 10 to prescribed
          authority.-(1) Any person aggrieved by a decision of the
          Collector under Section 10 may, within thirty days from
          the date of decision, or such further time as the
          prescribed authority may for sufficient cause allow,
c         appeal to the prescribed authority and its decision shall
          be final.

          (2) If any question arises whether any building or land
          faffs within the scope of Section 9 the same shall be
D         referred to the prescribed authority whose decision shall
          be final.

          *     *                     *

          29. Savings.-Save as othe1wise provided in this Act, no
E         order passed by the Collector or by the Special Tribunal
          under this Act shall be liable to be cancelled or modified
          except by the High Court as aforesaid or be questioned
          in any court of law."

        10. From a reading of Section 3 (supra), it is manifest that
F all inam lands stand vested in the State of Andhra Pradesh with
  effect from 20th July, 1955, the date when the Act came into
  force. Even so, it is common ground that the inam land in
  dispute had continued to be in possession of Ramachandra
  Reddy till his demise in the year 1968 whereupon the rights and
G privileges in regard to the same including those that would have
  entitled Ramachandra Reddy to claim occupancy rights under
  the Act on account of his being in cultivating occupation of the
  land on the date of the vesting were inherited by his legal heirs
  - the parties to this appeal. Respondent No.1, it is noteworthy,
H
     N. PADMAMMA v. S. RAMAKRISHNA REDDY                        651
               [T.S. THAKUR, J.]
was the only male member in the family left behind by the               A
deceased. Any recognition of his being in possession and
personal cultivation of the land held by his father was, in the
absence of any plea or proof of ouster, to be taken as
cultivation on behalf of the entire family, and not in his individual
capacity. We say so because the demise of Ramachandra                   B
Reddy, the original occupant of the land, could not on any juristic
principle grant exclusivity to his son (respondent No.1 in this
appeal) to claim the right to possession or cultivation of the land
which Ramachandra Reddy held in his individual capacity and
which upon his demise would logically and as a matter of                c
co•Jrse devolve upon the legal heirs left behind by him in equal
share. The status of respondent No.1 as a legal heir of the
deceased was no better than other legal heirs of Ramachandra
Reddy. Grant of occupancy rights to Respondent No.1 as the
only male member of the family, could not result in the extinction      D
of the rights of the appellants who had an equal claim in no way
inferior to that of respondent No.1 to succeed to estate left
behind by the deceased including succession to all such rights
that may have been inchoate on the date of the demise of
Ramachandra Reddy but as could result in a beneficial grant
in his favour based on his being an lnamdar. That the family            E
was joint on the demise of Ramachandra Reddy is not in
dispute. That it was dependent upon the land is also not in
dispute. In the absence of any evidence much less cogent and
credible one to establish ouster of the other members of the
Ramachandra Reddy's family it is difficult to ai:preciate how           F
respondent No.1 could claim the legacy of Ramachandra Reddy
whether in regard to the property owned by the deceased or
the rights which the deceased had as an occupant. The
reference order is, therefore, right when it says :
                                                                        G
     "Right of inheritance and succession is a statutory right.
     A right in a property which is vested in terms of the
     provisions of the Hindu Succession Act cannot be taken
     away, except in terms of provisions of another statute,
     which would have an overriding effect. Such special                H
    652       SUPREME COURT REPORTS                  (2014] 10 S.C.R.


A         statute should be a complete code. It shall ordinarily be
          a later statute. Ordinarily again it must contain a non
          obstante clause."

       11. It is fairly well settled principle of law that the
  possession of a co-heir is in law treated as possession of all
8
  the co-heirs. If one co-heir has come in possession of the
  properties, it is presumed to be on the basis of a joint title. A
  co-heir in possession cannot render its possession adverse to
  other co-heirs not in possession, merely by any secret hostile
C animus on his own part, in derogation of the title of his other
  co-heirs. Ouster of the other co-heirs must be evidenced by
  hostile title coupled by exclusive possession and enjoyment of
  one of them to the knowledge of the other. (See Corea v.
  Appuhamy 1912 AC 230). Reference may also be made to
  the decision of this Court in P. Lakshmi Reddy v. L. Lakshmi
D Reddy AIR 1957 SC 314 where this Court has succinctly
  summed up the legal position as under:

          "But it is well-settled that in order to establish adverse
          possession of one co-heir as against another it is not
E         enough to show that one out of them is in sole possession
          and enjoyment of the profits of the properties. Ouster of
          the non-possessing co-heir by the co-heir in possession
          who claims his possession to be adverse, should be
          made out. The possession of one co-heir is considered,
F         in law, as possession of all the co-heirs. When one co-
          heir is found to be in possession of the properties it is
          presumed to be on the basis of joint title. The coheir in
          possession cannot render his possession adverse to the
          other co-heir, not in possession. merely by any secret
          hostile animus on his own part in derogation of !he other
G
          co-heir's title. It is a settled rule of law that as between co-
          heirs there must be evidence of open assertion of hostile
          title, coupled with exclusive possession and enjoyment
          by one of them to the knowledge of the other so as to
          constitute ouster."
H


                                                                             I
   N. PADMAMMA v. S. RAMAKRISHNA REDDY                    653
             [T.S. THAKUR, J.]
     12. Relying upon the principles stated above, this Court     A
in Bhubaneshwar Prasad Narain Singh and Ors. V. Sidheswar
Mukherjee and Ors. (1971) 1 SCC 556, almost in similar
circumstances held:

    "In this case we have to consider whether the appellants      B
    had laid a claim which a co-sharer could not put forward
    except by pleading ouster or any other independent
    ground. Even if they were in actual Khas possession
    within the meaning of Section 2(k) of the Act it must be
    held that the plaintiff who was a co-sharer was in            C
    constructive possession through the appellants as "under
    the law possession of one co-sharer is possession of all
    the co-sharers". We see no reason to hold that the
    observations of this Court to the above effect in P.L.
    Reddy v. L.L. ReddyP. are not applicable to the case
    before us. The appellants do not claim to be trespassers      D
    on the property: neither did they claim any title to the
    lands adversely to the plaintiff-respondent. The deeming
    provision of Section 6 must therefore ensure for the
    benefit of all who in the eye of law would be regarded as
    in actual possession. It follows that the plaintiff had not   E
    lost his share in the Bakasht lands and had a right to
    them though not as tenure-holder or proprietor but
    certainly as a Raiyat under the provisions of the Land
    Reforms Act. The appeal must therefore be dismissed
    with costs."                                                  F
     13. In Kalgonda Babgonda Patil v. Balgonda Kalgonda
Patil and Ors. 1989 Supp (1) SCC 246, this Court was dealing
with inam lands held by ancestors of appellants under Vat
Hukums of Kolhapur State. The ancestors of the appellant were     G
holding the watan (inam) land in lieu of service and as they
were holding in the capacity of watan or inam, they were
impartible. The Trial Court decreed the suit for partition in
regard to watan land. In an appeal before the High Court of
Bombay, the Division Bench of that Court held that when watan
                                                                  H
    654       SUPREME COURT REPORTS               [2014] 10 S.C.R.


A (inam) rights were abolished, all rights including the right of
  partition also stood abolished. A three-Judge Bench of the High
  Court of Bombay overruled the view in another case holding
  that in view of abolition of inam; the properties enure for
  enjoyment of the members of the family who are entitled to
B claim partition. This Court held:

          "These watan lands continued to be the hereditary
          property of the family although according to the custom
          the watan was only in the name of the senior member of
          the family and the succession according to the custom
c         was in accordance with rule of primogeniture. For the first
          time under this Act these watans were abolished and the
          lands were converted into rayotwari lands and therefore
          it became partible."

D      14. The decisions in Kalgonda's case (supra) and
  Nagesh Bisto Desai case (supra) were followed in Shivappa
   Tammannappa Karaban v. Parasappa Hanammappa
  Kuraban and Ors. 1995 Supp (1) sec 162. That was a case
  arising under the Karnataka Village Officers Abolition Act,
E 1961. Re-grant was made in that case in the name of the former
  holder of the village office as a watandar. This Court held that
  just because the grant was made in the name of watandar, did
  not mean that the properties ceased to be joint family
  properties.
F         15. In Lokraj and Ors. V. Kishan Lal and Ors. (1995) 3
    sec 291 also this Court was dealing with abolition of inam
  under the Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Abolition of lnams
  Act, 1955. A suit for partition of the inam land was filed which
  was contested on the ground that abolition of the pre-existing
G right, title and interest of inamdar and grant of occupancy right
  to the occupant of the land disentitled anyone to claim a
  partition of such land. This Court while holding that the suit was
  not maintainable on account of abolition of pre-existing right,
  title and interest of the inamdar, observed:
H
    N. PADMAMMA v. S. RAMAKRISHNA REDDY                    655
           .  [T.S. THAKUR, J.]
    "4. Consequent to the abolition, the pre-existing right, title A
    and interest of the inamdar or any person having
    occupation of the inam lands stood divested and vested
    the same in the State until re-grant is made. The inamdar,
    thereby lost the pre-existing right, title and interest inthe
    land. The right to partition itself also has been lost by the B
    statutory operation unless re-grant is made. We are not
    concerned with the consequences that would ensue after
    re-grant of this appec 1 Therefore, it is not necessary for
    us to go into the question that may arise after the re-
    grant."                                                        c
      16. It is evident from the above that the right of partition
was held to have been lost by operation of law. Till such time
the grant was made no such right could be recognized observed
this Court. This Court specifically held that it was not concerned
with the consequences that would ensue after grant is made. D
The suit in the present case was filed after the grant of
occupancy rights. The question here is whether the grant of such
rights is for the benefit of one of the members of the joint family
or for all the heirs left behind by Ramachandra Reddy. Our
answer to that question is in favour of the appellants. In our E
opinion, the grant of such occupancy rights in favour of
respondent no.1 was for the benefit of all the legal heirs left
behind by Ramachandra Reddy. Reliance upon Lokra/s case
(supra}, therefore, is of no assistance to the respondents. We
are also of the view that the decision in Lokra/s case (supra), F
does not correctly apply the earlier decision of this Court in
Bhubaneshwar Prasad Narain Singh's case (supra). W i t h
utmost respect to the Hon'ble Judges who delivered the
decision in Lokraj's case, the law was not correctly laid down,
if the same was meant to say that even in the absence of a G
plea of ouster, a co-heir could merely on the basis of grant of
the occupancy rights in his name exclude the other co-heirs from
partition of the property so granted.

     17. In the result, we allow this appeal and set aside the    H
    656       SUPREME COURT REPORTS               [2014] 10 S.C.R.


A   judgment and order passed by the Courts below to the extent
    the same hold that inam lands granted in favour of respondent
    no.1 upon abolition of the inam under the Andhra Pradesh
    (Telangana Area) Abolition of lnams Act, 1955 are not partiable
    among the heirs left behind by Shri Ramachandra Reddy. The
B   suit filed by the appellants shall resultantly stand decreed even
    qua the inam land in the same ratio as has been determined
    by the High Court by the impugned judgment in regard to other
    items of properties. No costs.

    Devika Gujral                                     Appeal allowed.
c