Back
Andhra Pradesh High Court
Judges : C.Y.SOMAYAJULU
Pulla Prakasarao - Appellant
Versus
Nimmana Nagabhushanam - Respondent
Decided On : 06-04-02
Appeal – Andhra Pradesh (Andhra Area) Tenancy Act, 1956 – Sections 12 and 15 – Declaration – Recovery of possession – Damages – Default in payment – Suit was filed for declaration of title to 1 acre 86 cents of land in S. No. 178/12 within the boundaries mentioned in the scheduled appended to the plaint and for recovery of possession thereof and profits from the appellants – Suit land was originally belonged to three brothers, who had 1/3rd share each therein – After the death of his two brothers Venkata Raju and Viswanatham, Swamy let out the suit land to father of the appellants on an yearly rent of 10 bags of paddy payable on Makara Sankranti day every year – After the death of Naraiah, who committed default in payment of rent, since none of his legal heirs exercised their option to continue the lease in respect of the suit land, appellants lost their right to continue in the suit land as tenants and therefore their status was that of trespassers – Appellants cultivated the suit land in such status and delivered 10 bags of paddy to Swamy who received the same towards damages for use and occupation without prejudice to his right and issued receipts – Chittoori Swamy and the heirs of his brothers executed a sale deed dated 13-3-1981 in favour of the respondent in respect of the suit land and got it registered, and so respondent who became the absolute owner of the suit land, got issued a registered notice dated 17-3-1981 to the appellants through his advocate seeking possession of the suit land apart from damages for use and occupation – Appellants without surrendering possession, sent a reply with contentious allegations – Since a babul tree in the suit was cut and removed by the appellants, value of the tree and damages for use and occupation of the suit land also are due from the appellants – Appellants filed a common written statement admitting that Swamy let out the suit land to their father on an yearly rent of 10 bags of paddy and thus he used to collect rents as owner – Appellants denied the allegation that their father was in arrears of rent by the time of his death – Held, this court, hold that the appellants are not cultivating tenants in respect of the suit land and that their status vis-a-vis the suit land and respondent is that of trespassers – Appellants have no locus standi to question Ex. A13 sale deed in favour of the respondent because they are third parties to the said sale deed – Only if the appellants were cultivating tenants in respect of the suit land, would they be entitled to the benefits of Section 15 of the Act as amended by Act 39 of 1974, which came into force with effect from 1-7-1980, as per which they would have had the first option to purchase the property let out to them – When they are not the cultivating tenants of the suit land, they have no right to question Ex. A13 – Even if they were cultivating tenants, they could only say that the transaction of sale covered by Ex. A13 does not bind them and that they have a first right to purchase, but cannot question the genuineness of Ex. A13-passing of consideration thereunder – Since it is held that the status of appellants over the suit land is that of trespassers, and since the respondent purchased the suit land from Swamy, respondent can file a civil suit for recovery of possession against the appellants – Therefore the decree directing ejection of appellants passed by the Court is unassailable – appeal is dismissed.
( 1 ) DEFENDANTS in OS No. 81 of 1981 on the file of the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Kakinada are the appellants.
( 2 ) RESPONDENT filed the aforesaid OS No. 81 of 1981 against the appellants for declaration of his title to 1 acre 86 cents of land in S. No. 178/12 within the boundaries mentioned in the scheduled appended to the plaint, hereinafter called the suit land, and for recovery of possession thereof and profits from the appellants.
( 3 ) THE case, is brief, of the respondents is that the suit land originally belonged to three brothers viz. , Chittoori Venkata Raju, Viswanatham and Swamy, who had 1/3rd share each therein. After the death of his two brothers Venkata Raju and Viswanatham, Swamy let out the suit land to Pulla Naraiah, father of the appellants on an yearly rent of 10 bags of paddy payable on Makara Sankranti day every year. After the death of Naraiah, who committed default in payment of rent, since none of his legal heirs exercised their option to continue the lease in respect of the suit land, appellants lost their right to continue in the suit land as tenants and therefore their status is that of trespassers. They cultivated the suit land in such status and delivered 10 bags of paddy to Swamy who received the same towards damages for use and occupation without prejudice to his right and issued receipts. Chittoori Swamy and the heirs of his brothers executed a sale deed dated 13-3-1981 in favour of the respondent in respect of the suit land and got it registered, and so respondent who became the absolute owner of the suit land, got issued a registered notice dated 17-3-1981 to the appellants through his advocate seeking possession of the suit land apart from damages for use and occupation. Appellants without surrendering possession, sent a reply with contentious allegations. Since a babul tree in the suit was cut and removed by the appellants, value of the tree and damages for use and occupation of the suit land also are due from the appellants. Hence the suit.
( 4 ) APPELLANTS filed a common written statement admitting that Swamy let out the suit land to their father on an yearly rent of 10 bags of paddy and thus he used to collect rents as owner. They denied the allegation that their father was in arrears of rent by the time of his death. After the death of their father, they informed Swamy about their willingness to continue the lease and accordingly have been continuing the lease and were paying rent to him, as tenants, but not as trespassers. They were not verifying the receipts issued by him for the rents paid by them since they are not worldly wise. Only after receipt of summons in the suit, did they come to know about mischief was played by Swamy by issuing receipts with incorrect facts. Since they, after paying Maktha for the year 1979-80 to Swamy through K. Satyanarayana before Pongal, got issued a notice dated 27-3-1980, a piqued Swamy is alleging that they are trespassers; Civil Court has no jurisdiction to entertain a suit for possession since they are cultivating tenants. They denied their liability to pay damages for use and occupation or the value of the babul tree allegedly cut and removed by them.
( 5 ) BASING on the above pleadings as many as eight issues were settled for trial by trial Court. In support of his case, respondent examined himself as PW1 and four others witnesses as PWs. 2 to 5 and marked Exs. A1 to A19. In support of the case of appellants, they examined first appellant as DW1 and two other witnesses as DWs. 2 and 3 and marked Exs. B1 to B6 on their behalf. Exs. C1 and C5 were marked from the Court record. It should be stated here that in the appendix of evidence attached to the judgment of the trial Court, Ex. A13 is wrongly described as the notice issued by the Advocate for plaintiff to defendants 1 to 4, instead of describing it as the registered sale deed executed by Swamy and others in favour of the respondent. On the basis of the evidence on
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
