PINNINTI KISTAMMA AND ORS.versusDUWADA PARSURAM CHOWDARY & ORS.

                     [2010] 1 S.C.R. 297


             PINNINTI KISTAMMAAND ORS.                              A
                            V.
       DUWADA PARSURAM CHOWDARY & ORS.
         (Civil Appeal Nos. 6900-6906 of 2001)

                      JANUARY 8, 2010
                                                                    B
[TARUN CHATTERJEE AND HARJIT SINGH BEDI, JJ.]

    · Andhra Pradesh Record of Rights in Land Act, 1971:

     Revenue authorities' order declaring cultivatory               c
possession of tenants - HELD: High Court has rightly held
that the order of Tehsildar having achieved status of. finality
cannot be upset. by civil court and that the landlords had failed
to prove their possession and cultivation in respect of suit land
to the extent of 19. 80 acres.                                      D
     Code of Civil Procedure, 1908:

      s.114 and Or. 47, r.1 - Review - Clarification by High
Court of its judgment passed in second appeals - HELD: High
Court in the original judgment in second appeals had                E
considered both the batches of appeals arising out of the suits
of tenants and also cross suits of landlords - That apart,
tenants had filed suits limiting their claim to the extent of
19.80 acres of land - Therefore, High Court was justified in
reviewing the judgment, allowing the second appeals of              F
tenants only to the extent of 19.80 acres of land - There is
no ground for interference in exercise of jurisdiction under
Article 136 of the Constitution of India - Constitution of India,
1950 - Article 136.

     The appellants in CA Nos. 6900-6906 of 2001 filed              G
suits claiming tenancy rights in respect of 19.80 acres of
land and praying for permanent injunction restraining the
respondents(landlords) from interfering with their
                              297                                   H
    298      SUPREME COURT REPORTS            [2010] 1 S.C.R.

A  possession over the said land. The landlords filed cross-
  suits praying for injunction over 181 acres of land which
   also included the aforementioned 19.80 acres of land.
  The tenants also made complaint to Revenue authorities
  alleging manipulation of revenue records by the
B landlords, whereupon the Tehsildar conducted inquiry
  and by order dated 10.9.1984 declared the appellant-
  tenants and others as cultivatory tenants. The said order
  was affirmed by the Collector and the Commissioner of
  Land Revenue. The suits filed by the tenants were
c decreed. By a separate judgment the cross-suits filed by
  the landlords were dismissed. The landlords preferred two
  sets of appeals - one led by A.S. No. 12 of 1996 from the
  suits of landlords and the other led by A.S. No. 11 of 1996
  from the suits of tenants. The first appellate court, by two
  separate judgments allowed both the sets of appeals. The
0
  tenants challenged both the judgments in two sets of
  second appeals before the High Court, which assumed
  that all the appeals were filed against a common
  judgment in A.S. No. 12 of 1996 and the batch. The High
  Court granted a decree for permanent injunction in
E favour of the tenants. Thereupon, the landlords filed a
  review petition, which was allowed by the High Court
  clarifying its judgment that the appeals of tenants as
  regards the 19.80 acres stood allowed, and landlords'
  appeals to that extent stood dismissed and their other
F batch appeals partly allowed. Aggrieved, the tenants as
  also the landlords filed the appeals.

          Dismissing both the sets of appeals, the Court

       HELD: 1. The High Court granted a decree for
G permanent injunction in favour of the tenants mainly on
  the basis that the tenants were in possession and
  cultivation of the lands in dispute and after considering
  the fact the landlords had failed to prove their possession
  and cultivation in respect of the lands in question by
H
    PINNINTI KISTAMMA AND ORS. v. DUWADA               299
             PARSURAM CHOWDARY
producing reliable and material evidence before the court.    A
In this regard the High Court rightly accepted the findings
of the Tehsildar which had achieved the status of finality.
Such being the position, there is no merit in these
appeals so far as the Landlords/appellants are
concerned. [Para 16 and 19] [310-A-B-C-D]                     B

    Abdulla Bin Ali v. Ga/appa, AIR 1985 SC 577, State of
Tamil Nadu v. Ramalinga Samigal Nadam, AIR 1986 SC 794;
Sangubhotla Venkataramaiah v. Kallu Venkataswamy AIR
1976 AP 402, referred to.
                                                              c
     2. So far as the order of the High Court in the review
petition and batch is concerned, the High Court in the
original judgment in the second appeals had considered
not only the second appeal being A.S.No.12 of 1996 and
batch but also the second appeal filed against A.S.No.11 D
of 1996 and batch. That apart, the tenants/respondents
filed their suits for permanent injunction limiting their
claim to the extent of 19.80 acres of land and, therefore,
the High Court was fully justified in reviewing the said
judgment allowing the second appeals' of the tenants only E
to the extent of 19.80 Acres of land. Accordingly, there is
no ground to interfere with the order of the High Court
reviewing its judgment in the second appeals and batch,
in the exercise of discretionary power under Article 136
of the Constitution. [Para 21] [311-B-E]                    F
                 Case Law Reference :
    AIR 1985 SC 577         referred to          Para 17
    AIR 1986 SC 794         referred to          Para 17
                                                              G
    AIR 1976 AP 402         referred to          Para 17
    CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No.
6900-6906 of 2001.

    From the Judgment & Order dated 27.03.1997 of the High    H
    300      SUPREME COURT REPORTS                [2010] 1 S.C.R.


A   Court of Judicature Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad in S.A. Nos.
    374, 383, 398, 402, 403, 404 & 397 of 1996.

                                WITH

    C.A. No. 6907-6946 of 2001.
B
        Jitendra Sharma, P.N. Jha, Minakshi Vij, V.G. Pragasam,
    P.S. Narasimha, L. Roshmani, Sekhar G. Devasa, Sanjay
    Bansal, G.K. Bansal, P.N. Jha, for the appearing parties.

          The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
c
       TARUN CHATTERJEE, J. 1. These two batches of
  appeals are directed against the judgment and decree dated
  27th of March, 1997 passed by the High Court of Andhra
  Pradesh at Hyderabad in Second Appeal Nos. 361 of 1996 &
D batch and Second Appeal Nos. 374 of 1996 & batch and also
  against the judgment and order dated 10th of September, 1997
  of the same High Court in Review Petition Nos. 6980 of 1997
  and batch whereby the High Court modified its earlier order
  dated 27th of March, 1997.
E
       2. The Appellants in CA Nos. 6900-6906 of
  2001 (hereinafter called the 'Tenants'), filed O.S. Nos. 43 of
  1980 and batch (7 s1.1its) claiming tenancy rights in respect of
  19.80 Acres of land in Kambirigam Village and also prayed for
F permanent injunction restraining the Respondents in
  C.A.Nos.6900-6906 of 2001, who are also the appellants in
  C.A.Nbs.6907-6946 of 2001 (hereinafter called as the
  'Landlords') from interfering with their possession over the said
  land. The Landlords also filed Cross Suits being OS Nos. 75/
  1980 and batch (13 suits) praying for injunction restraining the
G Tenants from interfering with the peaceful possession of an
  extent of land measuring 181 Acres which also included the
  aforementioned 19.80 Acres.

      3. The case of the Tenants in their suits was that the plaint
H schedule lands formed a part of the pre-settlement un-
    PINNINTl KISTAMMA AND ORS. v. DUWADA  301
 PARSURAM CHOWDARY [TARUN CHATTERJEE, J.]

enfranchised lnams in Kambirigam Mokhasa in the erstwhile A
Tarla Estate, Tekkali Taluk. They had been cultivating the plaint
schedule land as tenants from time immemorial under,
 inamdars, predecessors-in-interest of Landlords by paying
Rajbhagam paddy to them. In 1804, the British Government
granted "Sannad" to the Tarla Estate wherein Kambirigam was B
                                                                  '-· -·
described as a Jagir which was an Estate within the meaning
of Section 3 of the Estate Land Act, 1908. However, no patta
was granted to the Landlords or their predecessors-in-interest.
 Therefore, according to the tenants, the rights of the Landlords
 in respect of the lands in question vested in the Government       c
by virtue of Madras Estates Abolition and Conversion into
 Raiyotwari Act of 1948. (for short 'Estates Abolition Act'). The
tenants had complained to the Revenue Authorities alleging that
 the Revenue records were manipulated by the Landlords.
 Pursuant to this, Tehsildar, Palasa conducted an enquiry D
wherein it was found that the Tenants and other raiyots were
 occupants and cultivators in the Revenue Records for Fasli
 1389. Being aggrieved by these orders, Landlords filed a Writ
 petition, which came to be registered as W.P.No. 3189of1980
 before the High Court of Andhra Pradesh claiming that they
were not given an opportunity to be heard in the enquiry E
conducted by the Tehsildar. Allowing the Writ Petition, the High
Court vide its order dated 24th of August, 1982 quashed the
order of the Tehsildar. However, the High Court had given liberty
to the Tehsildar to conduct a fresh enquiry after giving 0ue
hearing to the parties. Accordingly, the Tehsildar Palasa, F
conducted an enquiry again and passed an order dated 10th
of September, 1984, declaring the Tenants and others as
cultivators in Kambirigam village and further observed that since
the time of their ancestors, the Tenants and others had been
cultivating the lands in dispute separately and also making G-
pa):'ment to the Mokhasadars. This order was confirmed by the
Collector and Commissioner of Land Revenue.

    4. In the cross suits filed before. the District Munsif, the
Landlords claimed to be the Mokhasadars of Kambirigam
                                                                    H
    302     SUPREME COURT REPORTS                  (2010] 1 S.C.R.

A Mokhasa. According to them, the Plaint Schedule Lands are
  their absolute property which fell to their respective shares in
  the family arrangement among their respective family members
  inter se in or about the year 1945. Ever since such
  arrangement, they had been in exclusive possession and
B enjoyment of their respective land as described in the schedule
  of the plaint. According to the Landlords, Kambirigam village
  did not fall within the ambit of Section 2(d) of the Estates
  Abolition Act. No patta was granted to the Landlords because
  the village was not surveyed.
c      5. By its judgment and order dated 21st of July, 1987, the
  District Munsif, Palasa, decreed the suits filed by the Tenants
  praying for an order of permanent injunction, restraining the
  Landlords from interfering with their plaint schedule lands. By
  a separate order, District Munsif dismissed the cross suits filed
D by the Landlords praying for an order of injunction against the
  Tenants.

        6. Being aggrieved by the said judgment of the District
  Munsif, Palasa dated 21st of July, 1987, the Landlords
E preferred two sets of Appeals before the Principal Subordinate
  Judge, Srikakulam. From the suits filed by the Tenants, i.e. O.S.
  Nos. 75 of 1980 and batch the appeals were numbered as
  A.S.No.12 of 1996 and batch (i.e. 13 appeals) and from the
  suits filed by the Landlords, i.e. O.S Nos. 43 of 1980 and batch
F the appeals were numbered as A.S. No. 11 of 1996 and batch
  (i.e. 7 appeals). The Principal Subordinate Judge, Srikakulam,
  by two judgments dated 15th of April, 1996 delivered separate
  judgments in 13 appeals (A.S No. 12 of 1996 and batch) and
  7 appeals (A.S. No. 11 of 1996 and batch).
G       7. Disposing of the seven appeals in A.S.No.11/1996 and
  batch, the Principal Subordinate Judge noted that before the
  Trial Court, the plaintiffs and defendants in all seven suits, had
  taken similar pleas. After narrating the contentions of both the
  parties and examining the materials on record, the first
H appellate court came to a finding of facts, inter alia, as follows:
      PINNINTI KISTAMMA AND ORS. v. DUWADA  303
   PARSURAM CHOWDARY [TARUN CHATTERJEE, J.]

         8. The tenants did not dispute the contentions of the         A
    landlords that their ancestors became the landlords in respect
    of the plaint schedule land. According to the tenants, their
   ancestors were inducted into possession of separate bits of
   plaint schedule lands by the ancestors of the landlords. The said
   tenancy was alleged to have been continuing till the date of        B
   filing of the suit. In an enquiry conducted by the Settlement
   Officer on an application filed by one of the landlords to
   determine whether Kamibirgam village was an lnam Estate or
   not, none of the tenants appeared before the Settlement Officer.
   The said landlord had contended that he and his ancestors           c
i owned almost all the land in the village, though they let out a
I few bits of lands to some raiyots for seasonal cultivation
   temporarily. Thus, by his order dated 29th of June, 1950, the
   Settlement Officer held that Kambirigam village was not an lnam
   Estate. It was not the case of the tenants that they had been
                                                                       0
   inducted in possession of the plaint schedule land after the
   order of the Settlement Officer. Admittedly, they had no
   documents proving their possession. That the names of the
   landlords were recorded in the revenue registers as personal
   cultivators was also not denied. The contention that since the
  tenants were not residents of Kambirigam village onAhe date          E
  of the enquiry by the settlement officer, they could not appear
  before him, could not be accepted. If numerous tenants were
  put in possession of tiny bits of land measuring 300 Acres in
  respect of which the enquiry was conducted, at least one of
  them would have con1e across the notices pui up announcing           F
  the enquiry. In a suit filed by the landlords before the
  Subordinate Judge, Srikakulam for a declaration that
  Kambirigam village was not an estate, a finding was recorded
  that there were no tenants in the village. The Government which
 was a party to the suit, did not dispute this. An appeal preferred    G
  against the Order of the Subordinate Judge was dismissed.
  Until 1976, when the tenants submitted applications to the Sub
 Collector, Tekkali stating that they had been cultivating the lands
 in Kambirigam Village, paying 'Ambaram' to the Mokhasadars,
 no case was ever made out by the tenants that they had been           H
    304      SUPREME COURT REPORTS                   [201 O] 1 S.C.R.


A   tenants in Kambirigam village. In 1977, one of the landlords filed
    a suit claiming similar relief as in the present case against some
    of the tenants and the tenants did not even contest the said suit.
    Admittedly, they knew of the suit. The specious justification for
    not contesting the suit was that they were under the impression
B   that the suit was compromised. This plea could not be
    accepted. In the absence of any indication that there were
    tenants in the lands of Kambirigam village till 1977, the mere
    allegation that the names of the landlords were wrongly
    recorded in No.2 Adangal, could not be accepted. The
c   Tehsildar, Palasa by his order dated 18th of June, 1980 held
    that there were about 30 tenants in Kambirigam village but such
    an order was passed without giving any notice to the landlords.
    In the fresh enquiry conducted in accordance with the directions
    of the High Court issued on a writ petition filed by the landlords,
    applications filed by 60 other tenants were considered. The
0
    concerned Tehsildar by his order dated 10th of September,
    1984 held that sizable land of Kambirigam village was under
    the cultivation of the tenants. This order was confirmed by the
    Collector. On this basis, the tenants disputed the veracity of the
    findings recorded by the Settlement officer and by the
E   Subordinate Judge. The Tehsildar was of the opinion that as
    there was enough material to give rise to a doubt that the
    landlords had not been cultivating the entire cultivable land in
    the Kambirigam village, the benefit of doubt should be given
    to the hard pressed poor raiyots, as against the landlords who
F   were rich and influential. Thus, the order of the Tehsildar was
    not based on any reliable and acceptable documentary
    evidence. The particulars of land, or rent or tenants were not
    mentioned in the findings. The particulars of land mentioned in
    the applications filed before Sub-Collector by the tenants, do
G   not tally with those in the plaint schedule, based on the order
    of the Tehsildar. Hence, it is evident that the Tchsildar did not
    conduct the enquiry properly. Padi Narayana, the first defendant
    in all except one suit, had denied that he had been a tenant in
    the suit lands and had averred that he had been falsely
H   impleaded in the said proceedings. Yet, he appeared as a
   PINN INTI KISTAMMA AND ORS. v. DUWADA 305
PARSURAM CHOWDARY [TARUN CHATTERJEE, J.]
tenant in the findings given by the Tehsildar. Thus, the order of      A
Tehsildar was found not to be based on proper and legal
evidence. On the other hand, the names of the Landlords have
been recorded in the revenue registers as the personal
cultivators of the plaint schedule lands in the No.2 Adangal till
1979, i.e. for which these batch suits were filed. As against this,    B
neither the tenants entered the witness box to support their
specific cases, nor did they produce any reliable documentary
evidence to rebut the entries in the record. The testimonies of
witnesses they produced were not reliable.

      9. Disposing of A.S.No.12 and batch i.e. the 13 appeals          C
filed by the landlords from the Original Suits filed by the Tenants,
the Principal Subordinate Judge, inter alia, held that none of
the Tenants disputed the title of the Landlords over the land in
 Kambirigam village. While the Tenants, who were the plaintiffs
in this batch suits should have established that they had the          D
possession over the plaint schedule lands by virtue of the
tenancy granted in their favour by the predecessors of the
Landlords, none of them entered the witness box in support of
their case. The particulars of origin of the alleged tenancy were
 not given in any of the plaints. The testimony of the only witness    E
produced by the Tenants was self serving and was not
corroborated by any other evidence, as he was too young to
know the particulars of the alleged tenancy, which had allegedly
been in existence since time immemorial. Again, reference
was made to the discrepancies in the de~cription of land in            F
plaint schedules and in the applications filed before the Sub-
Collector, Tekkali. It was pointed out that the Tehsildar's report
on which the Tenants had placed reliance was not based on
legal and relevant evidence. As the burden of proof was on the
Tenants, the mere failure of the Landlords in establishing that        G
they had been personally cultivating the plaint schedule lands
alone would not enable the Tenants to get a permanent
injunction against them in respect of particular bits of plaint
schedule lands.
                                                                       H
    306         SUPREME COURT REPORTS                [2010] 1 S.C.R.


A      10. Accordingly, the first appellate court allowed the
  appeals of the landlords and dismissed the suit of the tenants
  against which second appeals were preferred by the tenants
  before a learned Single Judge of the Andhra Pradesh High
  Court which came to be registered as S.A.Nos.361 of 1996
s and batch and S.A.Nos.374 of 1996 and batch. The second
  appeals were directed against both the judgments and decrees
  dated 15th of April, 1996 passed by the Principal Subordinate
  Judge, Srikakulam in two batches of First Appeals, i.e.
  A.S.Nos.11 and batch and A.S.Nos.12 and batch. The High
C Court by the impugned judgment allowed all the Second
  Appeals, numbered as above.

       11. It may be noted that the Learned Judge in the impugned
  judgment, however, stated that "these second appeals arise out
  of a common judgment dated 15th of April, 1996 in A.S.No12
D of 1996 and batch on the file of the Principal Subordinate
  Judge, Srikakulam, reversing the judgment and decree in
  O.S.No.87 of 1980 on the file of the District Munsif, Palasa."

         12. Before the High Court in the second appeals and
E   batch, the following questions were taken into consideration:

           1.     Whether the Sannad granted in 1804 to Tarla
                  Estate describing Kambirigam village as Jagir
                  assumed the character of an "Estate" within the
                  meaning of Estate Abolition Act to the effect that
F                 the Landlords could dispossess the Tenants on that
                  count?

          2.      Is the Civil Court empowered to set aside the
                  orders of the three statutory authorities viz.
G                 Tehsildar, District Collector and the Commissioner
                  of Land Revenue, when no challenge was made to
                  their orders holding the Tenants as cultivators of the
                  land in question?

          13. After perusing the judgments of the courts below,
H
   PINNINTI KISTAMMA AND ORS. \·. DUWADA 307
PARSURAM CHOWDARY [TARUN CHATIERJEE, J.]
however, the High Court was of the opinion that the question       A
whether the Sannad granted in 1804 assumed the character
of an Estate within the meaning of Estate Abolition Act was of
no consequence at all, because factum of the grant of sannad
in 1804 itself was doubtful. The Tenants had not adduced any
evidence to prove that the rights of the Landlords, if any, had    B
vested in the Government. In the impugned judgment, the High
Court came to a conclusion that the issue No.1 should not be
examined in view of the aforesaid conclusion arrived at by it.
For appreciation of the finding arrived at by the High Court, we
may reproduce the same.                                            c
    "However, on going through the plaint O.S No. 75/80 it
    appears that no plea was made in that regard. The only
    averment made in the plaint is to the effect that the plaint
    schedule land was a portion of the pre-settlement
    unenfranchised inam in Kambirigam Mokhasa in the               D
    erstwhile Tarla Estate, and the Tarla Estate was abolished
    by the Government under the Act XXVI of 1948 but
    Kambirigam Mokhasa village was not taken over as it was
    not an "Estate" or an lnam Village within the meaning of
    the Abolition Act and that no patta was granted either to      E
    the defendants or .their predecessors in interest either
    under the Abolition Act, 1948 or Act XXXVll of 1956. The
    defendants therefore lost their right, if any, in the plaint
    Schedule land as it vested in the Government as stated in
    the concluding part of Para 3 of the Plaint. The Plaintiffs,   F
    who are the appellants before us do not seem to have
    produced any document in respect of these averments
    made in paragraph 3 of the plaint. I am, therefore, of the
    opinion that no useful purpose would be served in
    examining this question whether the respondents acquired       G
    nay right to dispossess the appellants."

     14. We have carefully examined these findings of the High
Court and after carefully examining the same, we do not find
any reason to differ from the conclusions arrived at by the High
                                                                   H
    308       SUPREME COURT REPORTS                  [2010) 1 S.C.R.


A Court on such question. Accordingly, we agree with the views
  expressed by the High Court on the question No.1 as noted
  herein above.

         15. Let us now consider the question No.2 as noted herein
  earlier. The said question is whether the Civil Court was
8
  justified in setting aside the orders of three statutory authorities,
  namely the Tehsildar, the District Collector and the
  Commissioner of Land Revenue without there being any
  challenge to these orders.

C       16. On this question, the High Court, after considering the
   relevant statutes on the subject and after considering the
   material evidence on record came to a conclusion that the
   decision of the Tehsildar which came subsequent to the filing
   of the suit i.e. on 10th of September, 1984, which was affirmed
o  by the District Collector and the Commissioner of Land
   Revenue, had achieved the status of finality. The High Court
  even came to the conclusion that even independent of that
   proposition the evidence, however, thin it may be, has weighted
   in favour of the persons who claimed to be the cultivators of
E the disputed lands. In the impugned judgment, the High Court
 ~had accepted the finding of the Tehsildar which stood in favour
  of the tenants that they had been cultivating the lands in question
  since time immemorial. In view of the findings arrived at, r .e
  Appeals of the Tenant were allowed by the High Court in
F S.A.Nos.361, 365, 366, 374, 383, 384, 391, 393, 394, 395,
  396, 397, 398, 399, 400, 401,402, 403, 404 of 1996, and the
  judgment of the First Appellate Court in A.S.No.12 was set
  aside.

          17. While accepting the order of the Tehsildar dated 10th
G of September, 1984, the High Court referred to the provisions
  of Andhra Pradesh Record of Rights in Land Act, 1971 and
  after considering the decisions of Abdulla Bin Ali v. Galappa,
  [AIR 1985 SC 577), State of Tamil Nadu v. Ramalinga
  Samigal Nadam, [AIR 1986 SC 794), Sangubhotla
H Venkataramaiah v. Kal!u Venkataswamy, [AIR 1976 AP 402),
   PINNINTI KISTAMMA AND ORS. v. DUWADA  309
PARSURAM CHOWDARY [TARUN CHATTERJEE, J.]

which discussed the principles relating to exclusion of A
jurisdiction of the Civil Courts by Statutory Tribunals, came to
the conclusion that the order of the Tehsildar dated 10th of
September, 1984 having achieved the status of finality cannot
be upset by the Civil Court. The High Court further found that
the Tenants were cultivating the land in question and, therefore, B
they were entitled to a decree for permanent injunction against
the landlords and accordingly the High Court allowed
S.A.Nos.361, 365, 366, 374, 383, 384, 391, 393, 394, 395,
396, 397, 398, 399, 400, 401,402, 403, 404 of 1996, and the
judgment of the First Appellate Court in A.S.No.12 was set          c
aside.

     18. That apart, from the impugned judgment, it is found that
the High Court concluded in the following manner :

    " .... the fact remains that the decision of the Revenue D
    Authorities which came subsequent to the filing of the Civil
    Suits stood unchallenged and not contradicted. The
    Tehsildar order dated 10th of September 1984, therefore,
    achieved the status of finality. On that account, therefore,
    the Landlords lost complete ground for denying the tenancy E
    rights of the Tenants-Appellants over the disputed lands.
    However, even independent of that proposition the
    evidence howsoever thin it may be, has weighed in favor
    of the persons who claim to be cultivators of the disputed
    land. The Tehsildar's second report speaks volumes about F
    the tenant's case that they have been cultivating the
    disputed laqds since the times of their ancestors and I am
    loath to disregard the same.

    The Tenants-Appellants' appeals therefore deserve to be         G
    allowed. Hence the appeals bearing no. 361, 365, 366,
    ~7.~4.~3,3M,392,~3,3W,3%,~6,397,398,~9.
    400, 402, 401,403 and 404 qt 1996 are allowed and the
    impugned judgement and the order dated 15.04.96 in A.S.
    No. 12 of 1996 and batch of lower appellate court is
    quashed and set aside. No costs."                               H
    310      SUPREME COURT REPORTS                   [201 OJ 1 S.C.R.


A       19. In view of our discussions made herein above and in
  view of the fact that the High Court had granted a decree for
  permanent injunction in favour of the tenants mainly on the basis
  that the tenants were in possession and cultivation of the
  disputed lands and after considering the fact the landlords had
B failed to prove their possession and cultivation in respect of the
  lands in question by producing reliable and material evidence
  before the court. Accordingly, as noted herein above, by the
  impugned judgment, the High Court had allowed the second
  appeal and granted a decree for permanent injunction in favour
c of the tenants/appellants who are respondents before us. Such
  being the position, we do not find any merit in these appeals
  so far as the Landlords/appellants are concerned. However, the
  Landlords filed a review petition being Review Petition No.6980
  of 1997 and batch against the group of second appeals,
0 namely, S.A.No.361 of 1996 and batch under Section 114 read
  with Order 47 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Among
  the many grounds that were taken, the High Court found merit
  only in one ground which is as follows-

          (1) When there was no defence and no proof emerging
E         from the documentary or oral evidence, the suits filed by
          the Landlords could not be dismissed as the extent claimed
          by the Tenants/appellants was only 19.80 Acres.

          20. Accordingly, the Court found it proper to insert a
F   clarification in the operative part of the judgment under review:

        "The Tenants appeal covering a total extent of Ac 19.80
        cents therefore deserved to be allowed. Hence the
        Appeals bearing Nos. 361/96, 365/96, 366/96, 367/96,
        384/96, 392/96, 393/96, 394/96, 395/96, 396/96, 399/96,
G       400/96 and 401/96 are allowed, covering a total extent of
        Ac. 19.80 cents as mentioned in the schedules in the
        respective plaints filed by the tenants out of the total extent
        of Ac. 181.90 cents of lands claimed in the respective
        plaints filed by the landlords in their respective plaints and
H       the impugned judgment and order dated 15th of April 1996
   PINNINTI KISTAMMAAND ORS. v. DUWADA   311
PARSURAM CHOWDARY [TARUN CHATTERJEE, J.]

       in AS. No. 12 of 1996 and batch of the Lower Appellate          A
       Court is quashed and set aside. The Landlords' claim to
       the aforesaid extent of AC No. 19.80 cents, thus, stands
       dismissed and to that extent only the Second Appeals Nos.
       374/96, 383/96, 397/96, 398/96, 402/96, 403/96 and 404/
       96 stand partly allowed. No costs."                             B

      21. So far as the order of the High Court in the review
petition and batch is concerned, we do not find any ground to
upset the order passed in review petition as we find that the
High Court in the original judgment in the second appeals had          C
considered not only the second appeal being AS.No.12 of
1996 and batch but also the second appeal filed against
A.S.No.11 of 1996 and batch. That apart, the tenants/
respondents filed their suit for permanent injunction limiting their
claim to the extent of 19.80 Acres of land and, therefore, the
High Court was fully justified in reviewing the said judgment          D
allowing the second appeal of the tenants only to the extent of
19.80 Acres of land. Accordingly, we do not find any ground to
interfere with the order of the High Court reviewing the second
appeals and batch in the manner indicated above in the
exercise of our discretionary power under Article 136 of the           E
Constitution.

    22. For the reasons aforesaid, we do not find any merit in
these appeals filed before this Court and, accordingly, the
appeals are dismissed. There will be no order as to costs.             F

R.P.                                         Appeals dismissed.