Facts
The appellants filed a suit for partition and separate possession of family property situated in a Scheduled Area. The Trial Court dismissed the suit, while the First Appellate Court decreed it. The High Court, relying on Nagarjuna Gramin Bank, held that Civil Courts lacked jurisdiction over disputes concerning properties in Scheduled Areas and restored the Trial Court's decision.
Issues Framed
(a) Whether Nagarjuna Gramin Bank v. Medi Narayana constituted a binding precedent excluding Civil Court jurisdiction in Scheduled Areas.
(b) Whether Civil Courts have jurisdiction to entertain partition disputes between exclusively non-tribal parties relating to property situated in Scheduled Areas.
Court's Reasoning
(a) The Court held that Nagarjuna Gramin Bank did not lay down a proposition of law. It merely deferred to the executive regarding extension of Civil Court jurisdiction and did not interpret the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Civil Courts Act, 1972. Hence, it was not binding precedent.
(b) Examining the constitutional history of Scheduled Areas and the object of the Fifth Schedule, the Court held that the exclusion of Civil Court jurisdiction is intended to protect tribal interests. That object is not attracted where all litigating parties are non-tribals. Therefore, S.9 CPC governs such disputes, and Civil Courts retain jurisdiction.
Held
The High Court's judgment was set aside. The second appeal was restored to the High Court for decision on merits. The declaration restoring Civil Court jurisdiction applies prospectively to pending and future cases. Where even one party is a tribal residing in a Scheduled Area, the Agency Courts alone will have jurisdiction.
Conclusion
Civil Courts possess jurisdiction over civil disputes concerning property situated in Scheduled Areas when the dispute is exclusively between non-tribal parties; the exclusion of jurisdiction exists to protect tribal interests and Nagarjuna Gramin Bank is not binding on this proposition.
Relevant Para
Para 13.4
"Considering these judgments and particularly the observations in VG Row supra it is clear to us that while the salutary object of protection of scheduled tribe people and their property is important and deserves to be given due importance, there is no basis for it there to be a blanket exclusion of Civil Courts in as much as, it pertains to civil disputes of succession between exclusively non-tribal parties although the property is situated within scheduled areas. We therefore hold that the Civil Court had the requisite jurisdiction to entertain the dispute. The High Court erroneously held the Civil Court not to have jurisdiction because of the exclusion of the application of the 1972 Act to the scheduled areas. In our view, the application thereof to the parties that are not in any way connected to its purpose would be incorrect use of law."
Case Details
Citation: 2026 INSC 810
Decided on: 06 August 2026
Case Title: Mukkera Venkata Ratnam & Ors. v. Vantasala China Venkateswarlu & Ors.
Court: Supreme Court of India
Bench: Sanjay Karol, J.; Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh, J.