SARASWATI AND ORS.versusLACHANNA (DEAD) THROUGH LRS.

-.                           SARASWATI AND ORS.                                    A
                                          v.
                    LACHANNA (DEAD) THROUGH LRS.

                               DECEMBER 8, 1993

            [R.M. SAHAI, N.P. SINGH AND S.P. BHARUCHA, JJ.)                        B

           A>idhra Pradesh (Telangana A7ea) Tenancy and Agricultural Lands
     Act, 1950-Section 9~ar ofjurisdiction-Suit for redemption of mortgage--
     Jurisdiction of civil court-Whether b<med-Held, no.

            Section 103 (2)-Suit for redemption-Mortgage executed when Preven-
                                                                                   c
     tion of Agricultural Land Alienation Act in f orce--Repeal-Rights or
     privileges accured under the Act repealed saved-Whether proce(!dings could
     be entertained by Tahsildar or Talukt:laHleld, No.

           Plaintiff filed suit for redemption of the suit property alleging tliat - D
     the suit property had been mortgaged in favour of the father of the original
     defendant and possession had not been delivered to him.

           The defendants pleaded that the Civil Court had no jurisdiction to
     try the suit. However the suit was decreed by the trial court holding that E
     the plaintiff had right to redeem the mortgage, and the civil court had
     jurisdiction to entertain the suit. On appeal, it was held that the suit was
     not barred by section 99 section of the Andhra Pradesh(Telangana Area)
     Tenancy and Agricultural La!lds Act, 1950. The second appeal filed before
     the High Court was also dismissed. Hence· this appeal.
                                                                                    F
           The appellants urged that in view of section 99 of the Act, which
     barred the jurisdiction of the Civil Court with regard to certain proceed-
     ing, the suit for redemption of the mortgage could not have been enter-
     tained by the Court and the dispute should have been left to be determined
     in accordance with the provisions of the said Act. It was pointed out that
     in view of Section 8(2) of the Prevention Qf Agricultural Land Alienation - G
     Act, even a mortgagor had to approach the_ Talukdar for redemption of
     mortgage and the Civil Court had not jurisdiction to entertain the suit.
     The appellants alleged that even if, there was no provision under\the
     Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, to entertain a suit relating to _
     redemption of the mortgage, in view of section 103 which had repealed the H
                                         927
                                                                 --
    928                   SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1993) SUPP. 3 S.C.R.

A Prevention of Agricultural Land Alienation Act, a proceeding for redemp-
    tion of a mortgage which had been executed when the Prevention of
    Agricultural Land Alienation Act was in force, could be entertained only
    by the Tahsildar or Talukdar.

            Dismissing the appeal, this court
B
          HELD : 1.1. Where a particular Act creates a right and also provides
    a forum for enforcement of such right and bars the jurisdiction of the Civil
    Court then ouster of the Civil Court jurisdiction bas to be upheld. But
    where the statute neither creates the right in question nor provides any
C   remedy or having created any righ! or liability no forum for adjudication
    of any dispute arising out of such right or liability is provided, the ouster
    of the Civil Court's jurisdiction is not to be easily inferred. (932-H, 933-A]

          Shiv Kumar Chadha v.Municipal Corporation of Delhi, (1993) 3 SCC
    161, relied on.
D
         1.2. In the instant case, in the Andbra Pradesh (Telangana Area)
   Tena!1cy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1950, neither there was any provision
   for seeking permission of any revenue authority before execution of an
   usufructuary mortgage nor a forum had been provided for adjudication of
E a dispute relating to any usufructuary mortgage. If none of the provisions
   of the Act, required that a proceeding for redemption of usufructuary
   mortgage was to be entertained by Tahsildar only, the bar of section 99
  ·could not operate and the jurisdiction of the Civil Court should not be
   deemed to have been ousted in respect of such suit•. (933-C-D]

F           Abdulla Bin Ali v. Galappa, (1985) 2 SCC 54, relied on.

           1.3. Sub-Section (2) of Section 103 of the Act, inspite of the repeal of
    the prevention of Agricultural Land Alienation Act, protects the right or
    privilege accrued under Act so repealed. (933-G]
G         Gollapalli Lingam v. Vadla Mallamma, (1959) 2 Andbra Weekly
    Reporter 497 and Rangaraj Gangaram v. Government of Andhra Pradesh,
    (1967) 1 Andbra Weekly reporter ll, affirmed.

            CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 1758 of
fl. 1980.
                   SARASWATiv. LACHANNA[NP. SINGH,J.)                         929

         From the Judgment and Order dated 10. a.7k of the Andhra Pradesh             A
    High Court in S.A. No. 314 of 1977.

          A.D.N. Rao, and A Subba Rao for the Appellants.

          Subodh Markandeya for the Respondent.
                                                                                      B
          The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

           N.P. SINGH, J. This appeal is on behalf of the defendants. The suit
    in question was filed for redemption of the suit property by the plain-
    tiffs/respondents. It was alleged in the plaint that the property mentioned
    in the schedule of the plaint had been mortgaged through a registered             C
    deed, in favour of the father of the original defendant and possession had
    been also delivered to him. As the defendants refused to surrender pos-
    session of the lands in question, after accepting the amount due, neces-
    sitated, filing of the suit.

          Apart from other defence, a plea was taken on behalf of the defen-          D
    dants that the Civil Court had no jurisdiction to try the suit in question.·
    The Trial Court came to the finding that .the plaintiffs had right to redeem
    the mortgage, and the Civil Court had jurisdiction to entertain the suit.
    On the aforesaid fmdings, the suit was decreed. On appeal being filed by
    the defendants, the learned District Judge, affirmed the aforesaid fmdings        E
    of the Trial Court, including in respect of the jurisdiction of the Civil Court
    to entertain the suit. It was held that the suit was not barred by Section 99

-   of the Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Tenancy and Agricultural Lands
    Act, 1950 (hereinafter referred to as the ''Tenancy and Agricultural Lands
    Act"). The second appeal filed on behalf of the appellants, before the High
    Court was also dismissed, affirming the findings of the Trial Court and the       F
    Court of Appeal, including in respect of the maintainability of the suit
    before the Civil Court.

          The learned counsel, appearing for the defendants/appellants, did
    not question the findings of the Courts below on merit, but, according to         G
    him, in view of Section 99 of the Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act,
    which bars the jurisdiction of the Civil Court with regard to certain
    proceeding, the suit for redemption of a mortgage could not have been
    entertained by the Civil Court and the dispute should have been left to be
    determined and to be dealt with in accordance with the provisions of the
    said Act. It was pointed out that in view of Section 8(2) of the Prevention       H
    930                     SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1993) SUPP. 3 S.C.R.

A of Agricultural Land Alienation Act (No. III of 1349 Fasli), even a
    mortgagor had to approach the Talukdar from redemption of mortgage
    and the Civil Court had no jurisdiction to entertain the suit. Although the
    aforesaid Agricultural Land Alienation Act was repealed by the Tenancy
    and Agricultural Land Act, even then in view of Section 99 Civil Court
    shall have no jurisdiction to settle, decide and deal with any question which
B   is by or under the said Act required to be settled, decided or dealt with
    by the Tahsildar, Tribunal, Collector, the Board of Revenue or the Govern-
    ment. Sectic;in 99 says : -

              "Sec. 99. Bar of Jurisdiction.-(1) Save as provided in this Act no
            . Civil Court shall have jurisdiction to settle, decide or deal with any
c             question which is by or under this Act required to be settled,
              decided or dealt with by the Tahsildar, Tribunal or Collector or
              by ~he Board of Revenue or Government.

                 (2) No order of the Tahsildar Tribunal or Collector or of the
D             Board of Revenue or Government made under this Act, shall be
              be questioned in any Civil or Criminal Court".

  From a plain reading of the aforesaid section, it is apparent tha_t a Civil
  Court shall have no jurisdiction to settle, decide or deal with any question
E "which is by or under this Act required to be settled, decided or dealt with
  by the Tahsildar .............11 • In other words, the jurisdiction of the Civil Court
  has been ousted only in respect of such questions which are required to be
  decided or dealt with under the provisions of the Tenancy and Agricultural
  Lands Act. In view of the express and unambiguous language of Section
  99, it ~ot be disputed that if it is found that even a suit for redemption
F has to be decided and to be dealt with under the provisions of the Tenancy
  and Agricultural Lands Act, then Section 99 will operate as a bar on the
  power of a Civil Court to entertain a suit for redemption.

           The different sections of the Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act
G vest power in Tahsildar to entertain disputes in connection with the pos-
  s~ssion of the lands. But, the learned counsel, appearing for the appellants
  had to concede that none of the provisions of the Act prescribe that even
  a- suit for redemption can be entertained under the provisions of the said
  Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act by the Tahsildar. Faced with this
  situation, a stand was taken on behalf of the appellants, that even if, there
H is no provision under the Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, to entertain
                  SARASWATiv. LACHANNA[NP.SINGH,J.]                           931

1   a suit relating to redemption of the mortgage, in view of Section 103 which A
    has repealed the Prevention of Agricultural Land Alienation Act, a
    proceeding for redemption of a mortgage which had been executed when
    the said Prevention of Agricultural Land Alienation Act was in force, can
    be entertained only by the Tahsildar or Talukdar.

         Section 103 repeals Prevention of Agricultural Land Alienation Act.         B
    Sub-section (2) is as follows : -

            "Notwithstanding anything contained in the seco~d proviso to
            sub-section (1), clause (c) of sub-section (2) of section 10 of the
            Prevention of Agricultural Land Alienation Act (ill of 1349 F)
            shall for the purposes of the said proviso have effect as though for     C
            the said clause the following clause was substituted, namely : -

            '(c) if the amount received by the mortgagee from the mortgagor
            in case of a simple mortgage or the value of the benefits realised
            by the mortgagee from the possession of land together with the           D
            amounts paid by the mortgagor to the mortgagee in case of an             ;.'
            usufructUary mortgage is less than the amount due, the Collector
            shall, on the mortgagor ·paying the amounts dut: in Cash, terminate
            the mortgage by an order in writing and if the mortgagee is in
            possession of the lands, he shall place the mortgagor in possession      E
            thereof. If the mortgagor fails to pay the amount due, the Collector
            shall order that tlie lands, if it is already in the possession of the
            mortgage shall continue to be in his possession for such period not
            exc~eding 10 years,. as may be considered by the Collector
            reasonable for the payment of the amount due after the expiry of
            which the land shall be restored to the possession of the                F
            mortgagor.'"

          It was submitted that in view of su~-section (2) of Section 103, a
    mortgagor can still approach the Collector for possession of the lands
    mortgaged, payment of the amounts due. A reference was made to a                 G
    judgment of the Andhra Pradesh High Court, in the case of Gollapalli
    Lingam v. Vadla Mallamma, (1959) 2 Andhra Weekly Reporter, 497. In
    that case, the respondent before the High Court had initiated a proceed-
    ing for redemption of the mortgage executed by him in the year 1944,
    before the Collector. An objection was taken on behalf of the mortgagee,
    who was the petitioner before the High Court, after the repeal of Preven-        H
    932                   SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1993) SUPP. 3 S.C.R.,

A   tion of Agriculture Land Alienation Act, such application could not be
    entertained by the Collector. The High Court pointed out there was no
    provision in the Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act for creating an
    usufructuary mortgage, as was the case under the repealed Act. But then
    it was said after referring to sub-section (2) of Section 103 of the Tenancy
    and Agricultural Lands Act, that it clearly showed an intentioa to save.
B   accrued rights under Act III of 1349-F; the rights, privileges and obligations
    conferred under Act III of 1349-F were of a special nature and were
    designed to prevent a class of persons from alienating their lands without
    following certain procedure. The rights, privileges and obligations, as well
    as the procedure for enforcing and determining those are specified under
C   the Act. The Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act which repeal«d Act III
    of 1349-F did not lay down any special procedure to work out the rights,
    privileges and obligations already accrued under the repealed Act. It was
    held that an application which had been filed for redemption before the
    Collector under the provisions of the repealed Act was maintainable. A
    similar view was expressed in the case of Rangaraj Gangaram v. Govt. of
D   A.P., (1967) 1 Andhra Weekly Reporter 12, saying that althtmgh Section
    103 of the Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act repeals the earlier Act, but
    it saves the rights acquired or accrued and also saves the remedy, which
    was availal?le in order to enforce that accrued or acquired right.

           In the case of Abdulla Bin Ali v. Galappa, (1985) 2 SCC 54, the
E   plaintiff had filed a suit· for possession and mesne profits against the
    defendants describing them as trespassers. Before filing of the suit a
    proceeding had been initiated under the provisions of the Tenancy and
    Agricultural Lands Act alleging that the defendants were the tenants and
    had defaulted the payment of rent for the lands in question. In that
F   proceeding, the defendants disputed the title of the plaintiff to receive rent.
    Thereafter the suit in question was filed. In· this suit a plea was taken by
    the defendant that in view of Section 99 aforesaid, such suit was not
    maintainable before the Civil Court. That plea was negative saying that it
    was no doubt true that the plaintiffs has alleged that defendant 2 was a
    tenant but on the denial of the tenancy and the title of the plaintiffs-appel-
G   lants, they filed a suit treating the defendant to be a trespasser and a suit
    against the trespasser would lie only in the civil court and not in the
    revenue court.


          Where a particular Act creates a right and also provides a forum for
H   enforcement of such right and bars the jurisdiction of the Civil Court tl:ien
               SARASWATiv. LACHANNA[NP.SINGH,J.]                       933

ouster of the Civil Court jurisdiction has to be upheld. But the situation, A
will be different where the statute neither creates the right in question nor
provides any remedy 1lf having crt.:dted ctny right or liahility no forum for
adjudication of any dispute arising out ot ~uch right or lw Jility is provided.
In such a situation, the ouster of the Civil Court's jurisdiction is not to be
easily inferred. Recently this Court, in the case of Shiv Kumar Chadha v.
Municipal Corpn. of Delhi, [1993] 3 SCC 161, has examined the aforesaid B
question in detail.

       In the present case, it is an admitted position that tin the Tenancy
and Agricultural Lands Act neither there is any provision for seeking
 permission of any revenue authority before execution of an usufructuary C
mortgage nor a forum has been provided for adjudication of a dispute
relating to any usufructuary mortgage. s·ection 99 which ousts the jurisdic-
tion of the Civil Court, says in clear and unambiguous words that such Civil
 Court shall have no jurisdiction to settle or decide or deal with any question
which is "by or under this Act required to be settled, decided or dealt with
by the Tahsildar, Tribunal or Collector or by the Board of Revenue or D
Government." If none of the provisions of the Tenancy and Agricultural
Lands Act require that a proceeding for redemption of usufructuary
mortgage is to oe entertained by Tahsildar only, it is obvious that the bar
of Section 99 cannot operate and the jurisdiction of the Civil Court shall
not be deemed to have been ousted in respect of such suit. Section 9 of E
the Code of Civil Procedure vests power in the Civil Court to try all suit
of a civil nature "except suits of which their cognizance is either expressly
or implied barred". If Section 99 does not operate as a bar on the power
of the Civil Court to entertain a suit rek.ting to the redemption of an
usufructuary mortgage, then it has rightly been held by the courts, including
the High Court, that the suit filed on behalf of the plaintiffs- respondents F
was maintainable. Once it is held that Section 99 does not oust the
jurisdiction of a Civil Court in respect of a suit for redemption, then a bar
on such power cannot be pleaded on ba~is of sub-section (2) of Secti0n
103 of the Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, which, in spite of the
repeal of the Prevention of Agricultural Land Alienation Act, protects the G
right or privilege accrued under the Act so repealed.

     Accordingly, the appeal fails and is dismissed. But in the facts and
circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs.

AG.                                                      Appeal disposed.