( 1 ) THESE six Civil Revision Petitions arise out of the Judgments in Small Cause Suit nos. 12, 14, 16, 17, 19 and 25 of 1998 on the file of Principal Junior Civil Judge, Razole.

( 2 ) IN all these Civil Revision Petitions, the unsuccessful plaintiff - Pasarlapudi choultry - represented by its Executive officer is the revision petitioner and different tenants under the Institution figure as respondents in all these Civi) Revision petitions. The suits are filed for recovery of arrears of rent from the respective respondents-defendants in these suits on the ground that they are cultivating tenants and they are liable to pay the rents. The respective defendants had filed the written statements denying the averments in the respective plaints and also denying the title of the plaintiff-choultry and claiming title by adverse possession as well. In all these matters, on the strength of the respective pleadings of the parties, the following points were framed for consideration:" (1) Whether there is any complicated question of title of the plaintiff/ choultry, which a Small Cause court cannot finally determine? (2) Whether the defendant is the cultivating tenant of plaintiff- choultry and failed to pay rents for the years 1995-96, 1996-97 and 1997-98? (3) Whether the plaintiff-choultry is entitled to recover the arrears of rentals claimed in the suit from the defendant, if so to what extent?"

( 3 ) THE Executive Officer of the plaintiff- choultry was examined as PW. 1 and the respective tenants were examined as D. W. 1 in all these matters and the documentary evidence of Exs. A-1 to A-8 and Exs. B-1 and b-2 was adduced by the respective parties. The Court below after discussing the points for consideration, had ultimately dismissed the suits and the plaintiff-institution aggrieved by the said Judgments made in s. C. NOS. 12, 14, 16, 17, 19 and 25 of 1998 had filed these Civil Revision Petitions.

( 4 ) SRI Metta Chandrasekhar Rao, the learned Counsel for the revision petitioner- plaintiff, had contended that in the light of the settlement deed Ex. A-8, dated 9-7-1909, the question of title is not is dispute at all. The learned Counsel also had contended that Section 23 of the Provincial Small Cause courts Act, 1887 (for short called as the Act hereinafter) has no application to the facts of the case since there is no question of returning the plaints, though, in these suits, the question of title is involved. It was also contended that the mere denial of title in the pleading for denial sake is not sufficient and the defendant denying the title in a small cause suit also should prima facie place some material to substantiate his contention. In all these matters, except the pleas raised by the respective respondents-defendants in all these suits, absolutely there is no material and hence, the Court below had totally erred in placing the reliance on the decision in m. Suryanarayanaraju v. K. Apparao in this regard. Learned Counsel also had contended that the evidence of P. W. 1 is clear and categorical relating to the relationship of landlord and cultivating tenants and hence, the Court below had totally erred in dismissing the suits. Learned counsel also had drawn my attention to paragraph 6 of the Judgment, wherein it was contended by the learned Counsel for the plaintiff that the title of the plaintiff-choultry had been already declared in LOC 701/ rzo/75, dated 15-2-1993 by the land reforms Tribunal, Kakinada. The learned counsel also had taken me through paragraphs 9 to 11 and 15 to 17 of the impugned Judgment and had pointed out how the Court below had not properly appreciated the evidence available on record and how the approach of the Court below is totally erroneous even in appreciating the question of burden of proof involved in the matters.

( 5 ) HEARD the learned Counsel for the petitioner in these matters at length and perused the material available on record in all the Civil Revision Petitions.

( 6 ) THE