C. Y. SOMAYAJULU, J.

( 1 ) FOR the sake of convenience, the parties hereinafter are referred to as they are arrayed in the trial Court.

( 2 ) APPELLANTS are Defendants 1 to 3 in o. S. No. 46 of 1977 on the file of the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Tirupati, filed by G. Chenga Reddy (plaintiff) after whose death his legal representatives were brought on record. Plaintiff in the first instance filed the suit against appellants-defendants 1 to 3 and his son Gudur paradesi (4th defendant) for recovery of possession of the plaint schedule land, (suit land), and for profits, past and future, alleging that defendants 1 to 4, who are partners of venkateswara Oil Company (the firm) took the suit land on lease on a monthly rent of Rs. 750/- and had committed default in payment of rent. 3rd defendant filed his written statement, which was adopted by defendants 1 and 2, denying the title of plaintiff and also tenancy, and contending that he and defendants 1,2 and 4 took the suit land on lease from sura Venkat Reddy (5th defendant), 4th defendant remained ex parte. After his being added as 5th defendant, 5th defendant filed written statement claiming title to the suit land. Plaintiffs examined four witnesses as P. Ws. 1 to 4 and marked Exs. A-1 to A-51. On behalf of defendants 1 to 3, D. Ws. l and 2 were examined and Exs. B-1 to B-54 and Exs. X-I and x-2 were marked through witnesses. The evidence of P. Ws. 1 was eschewed because he did not go into the witness box after being examined in-chief in part. P. W. 2 is the 4th defendant i. e. , son of plaintiff. P. Ws. 3 and 4 are independent witnesses. D. Ws. 1 and 2 are defendants 3 and 2 respectively. The trial Court having held that the plaintiff failed to establish the lease, decreed the suit for possession and profits on the ground that plaintiff has better title than defendants 1 to 4 and dismissed the suit against defendants 5 to 7 as no relief was claimed against them. A learned Single Judge of this Court dismissed A. S. No. 2144 of 1987 preferred by defendants 1 to 3 against the decree of the trial Court. Hence this L. P. A. , by defendants 1 to 3.

( 3 ) WHEN the appeal came up before a bench consisting of P. Venkata Rama Reddy, j. , and one among us (R. M. B. J. ,), findings from the trial Court as to whether the defendants 1 to 3 and 5 perfected their title to the suit land by adverse possession, and if the rights of Atchamma (mother of plaintiff) and plaintiff over the suit land got extinguished, were called for. On the basis thereof the trial Court issued notices to the parties. No further evidence was adduced by the parties before the trial Court. The trial Court, after considering the rival contentions, recorded the findings in favour of the plaintiff on the above two points. Thereafter the matter came up for hearing before us.

( 4 ) THE main contention of Mr. Venkata ramana, learned Counsel for defendants 1 to 3, is that in a suit for ejectment of a tenant by a landlord, if the landlord fails to establish the tenancy set up by him, he would not be entitled to a decree for possession against the defendant on the basis of his title. It is his contention that since the trial Court and the learned single Judge concurrently found that the plaintiff failed to establish the tenancy set up by him, decree for possession on the basis of title cannot be passed in favour of the plaintiff. It is his contention that the findings of the trial court and the learned Single Judge on the issues framed are beyond the scope of the suit, and since the suit against 5th defendant, who became the owner of the suit land by virtue of ex. B-3, was dismissed and since it is the contention of defendants 1 to 3 that they took the suit land on lease from 5th defendant, plaintiff cannot be allowed to seek any relief against defendants 1 to 3. He relied on Brahmanand v. Mathra Puri; Bhagwari v. Chandramaul; bibi Rehana Khatun v. Iqtidar Uddin Hasan and Sitaram v. Radha Bai in support of his contentions.

( 5 )

Click Here to Read the rest of this document