IMPORTANT POINT
A tenant is precluded from denying the title of landlord in terms of Section 116 Evidence Act and such landlord would be entitle to maintain eviction petition on ground of default in payment of rent and subletting though such a landlord was not entitled to inherit the suit property under law.

Headnote:Hindu Marriage Act, 1955—Sections 5, 11 and 16—Andhra Pradesh (Andhra Area) Tenancy Act, 1956—Evidence Act, 1872—Section 116—Application for eviction of appellants under A.P. Tenancy Act on ground of default and sub-letting—Plaintiff was the second wife of owner of property and claimed to have inherited property along with her two daughters, respondents 2 and 3 after death of her husband and the 1st wife who died issueless—Trial Court decreed suit—Distt. Judge in appeal set aside the decree holding that plaintiff did not acquire any title or interest in the properties as she was not legally wedded wife in view of admitted fact that her marriage had taken place during subsistence of 1st marriage of her husband—During pendency of revision before High Court, impleadment of respondent Nos. 2 and 3 was sought which was allowed and order was maintained in SLP—High Court held appellants liable to be evicted on ground of subletting and default in payment of rent—Appeal—Respondents 2 and 3 though born out of wedlock between plaintiff and her husband during subsistence 1st marriage of the husband, they would be entitled to succeed to properties on death of their father and the 1st wife—High Court was justified in holding that on death of their father they having inherited property were entitled to evict appellants—Section 116 of Evidence Act was applicable in the case as findings of Courts below that appellants were inducted by plaintiff and possession was not restored to her by surrender were based on consideration of material evidence not liable to be disturbed—Eviction petition filed by respondent No.1 was maintainable in law and she was entitled to decree prayed.
       Held : Accordingly, the High Court was justified in holding that on the death of Suryanarayana, the properties in question were inherited by his daughters, namely, respondents 2 and 3, along with Chilakamma and therefore were entitled to evict the appellants from the properties in question along with Pydamma. Accordingly, the findings of the High Court on the question whether respondents 2 and 3 were entitled to inherit the properties in question of late Suryanarayana jointly with Chilakkamma cannot be interfered with. That apart, in an application for eviction under the A.P. Tenancy Act in which prayer for grant of eviction of a lessee was made, it would not be necessary to decide that the daughters, respondent Nos. 2 and 3 comprehensively had to prove that on the death of Suryanarayana and Chilakamma, they were entitled to inherit the properties in question in the eviction proceedings. Therefore, it is not necessary to finally adjudicate upon the question of right, title and interest of the daughters with respect to the properties in question, which may be done in a comprehensive suit for title.(Para 13)
       In the impugned order, the High Court held that it was Pydamma, respondent No.1, who had inducted the appellants in the properties in question and it was also the finding of the High Court and also the trial court that the appellants continued to pay rent in respect of the properties in question for some period and thereafter stopped payment. On such findings, the High Court held that it was not open to the appellants to deny the title of properties in question of Pydamma in view of Section 116 of the Evidence Act. In the case of Bilas Kunwar v. Desraj Ranjit Singh, ( AIR 1915 Privy Council at p. 98), the Privy Council observed as follows:
       “A tenant who has been let into possession cannot deny his landlords title, however, defective it may be, so long as he has not openly restored possession by surrender to his landlord.” (Emphasis supplied).
       This view was also recognized by this Court in Atyam Veerraju and others Vs. Pechetti Venkanna and others [AIR 1966 SC 629]. Similar view has also been expressed in a later decision of this Court in the case of Tej Bhan Madan Vs. II Additional District Judge and Ors. [(1998) 3 SCC 137] in which it was held that a tenant was precluded from denying the title of the landlady on the general principles of estoppel between landlord and tenant. It was held that the principle, in its basic foundations, means no more than that under certain circumstances law considers it unjust to allow a person to approbate and reprobate. In our view, Section 116 of the Evidence Act is clearly applicable in the present case, as held by the High Court in the impugned order. The finding of fact of the High Court and the trial court that the appellants were let into possession by Pydamma and that possession was not restored to her by surrender, was based on consideration of material evidence on record, which cannot be disturbed by us. Therefore, in our view, even if respondent No.1, Pydamma, was not entitled to inherit the properties in question of late Suryanarayana then also she could maintain the application for eviction and obtain a decree/order of eviction on the ground of default and sub-letting under the A.P. Tenancy Act.(Para 16 and 17)
       (ii) Hindu Marriage Act, 1955—Sections 5, 11 and 16—Void marriage—No marriage could be performed if there was a living spouse—Child of such marriage however shall be legitimate entitled to inherit property of his father.(Para 13)

Judgement Key Points

The primary issue in this case revolves around the legal right to inherit and possess the property in question following the death of the original owner, Suryanarayana. Specifically, the case addresses whether the daughters, respondents 2 and 3, who were born out of a marriage considered void under applicable law, are entitled to inherit the property along with the first wife, Chilakamma, and whether Pydamma, the second wife, has any lawful claim to the property. Additionally, the case examines whether the eviction of the appellants by the respondents is legally justified based on their status as tenants and the validity of the inheritance rights, despite questions regarding the legitimacy of the marriage and the applicability of certain statutory provisions governing inheritance and tenancy rights (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) .

JUDGMENT

Tarun Chatterjee, J.—One Shri Vuggina Suryanarayana was the owner of the following lands in vommali village of Madugula Mandalam of Vishakhapatnam district of Andhra Pradesh:

0.64 Acres in S. No. 77/1

1.46 Acres in S. No. 116/1

2.31 Acres in S. No. 117/1

3.06 Acres in S. No. 117/2

2.25 Acres in S. No. 117/5

1.13 Acres in S. No. 117/6

1.16 Acres in S. No. 117/9

1.19 Acres in S. No. 117/9

(hereinafter referred to as “the properties in question”).

He died on 8th January 1972 leaving behind two widows, namely Chilakamma and Pydamma. Admittedly, the second marriage between Vuggina Suryanarayana and Pydamma had taken place during the subsistence of the first marriage of Vuggina Suryanarayana and Chilakamma. Out of the second marriage two daughters, namely, Nukaratnam and Mahalakshmi were born. On 28th July 1973 the first wife of Vuggina Suryanarayana, Chilakamma, died issueless. According to Pydamma, on the death of Suryanarayana and Chilakamma the properties in question devolved on her and her two daughters, who are respondent Nos. 2 and 3 herein. Pydamma, had filed an application for eviction of the appellants under the Andhra Pradesh (Andhra Area) Tenancy Act 1956 (in short ‘the A.P. Tenancy Act’) before the District Munsif-cum-Special Officer, Madugula, A.P. on 18th September, 1990, which came to be registered as ATC 3/90, without making her daughters, being the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 herein, as parties to the same. Pydamma in her eviction petition claimed eviction, inter-alia on the grounds of default and sub-letting. It was also the case of Pydamma in her eviction petition that she had inducted the appellants as lessees in respect of the properties in question and after payment of rent for some time, the appellants had stopped paying, inter-alia, on the ground that they had inherited the properties in question on the death of the first wife of Suryanarayana, i.e. Chilkamma. In defence, the appellants pleaded that as they were the nephews of late Suryanarayana and as Suryanarayana had no issue out of his marriage with Chilkamma and as they were the only heirs and legal representatives of late Suryanarayana, being in actual physical possession and enjoyment of the properties in question owned by Suryanarayana since Chilakamma’s death, in their own right, the eviction petition field by Pydamma was not maintainable. They also pleaded that there was no relationship of landlord and tenant between Pydamma and them. The following issues were framed in the eviction petition.

“(1) Whether Pydamma is the second wife of Suryanarayana and whether she succeeded the properties of late Suryanarayana and his first wife late Chilakamma?

(2) Whether there is any landlord and tenant relationship between Pydamma and the appellants in respects of the property in question?

(3) Whether Pydamma is entitled to evict the appellants from the property in question and whether she is entitled to possession of the same?”

2. By a judgment and order dated 17th November 2000, the District Munsif-cum-Special Officer allowed the eviction petition filed by Pydamma holding that there existed landlord and tenant relationship between Pydamma and the appellants and that the appellants were liable to be evicted on the grounds of default and sub-letting under the A.P. Tenancy Act.

3. An appeal was carried by the appellants to the learned District Judge-cum-appellant authority, who allowed the appeal, holding that Pydamma did not acquire any right, title or interest to the properties in question as she could not be said to be a legally wedded wife in view of the admitted fact that her marriage with late Suryanarayana had taken place during the subsistence of the marriage of late Suryanarayana and Chilkamma. Thus, it was held by the appellate authority that Pydamma was not entitled to evict the appellants from the properties in question as landlady of the appellants.

4. Feeling aggrieved by the judgment and order passed in the appeal, a civil revision petition was moved before t

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2006 Supreme(SC) 511

Cases Referred (2)