Back
Andhra Pradesh High Court
Judges : P.RAMAKRISHNAM RAJU
Venkateswara Oil Co. - Appellant
Versus
G.Jalaja Reddi - Respondent
Decided On : 12-16-96
Court-fees Act - section (xi) (cc) - Civil Procedure Code, 1908 - Rule 12 - order 20 - payment of rent - possession of the plaint - plaint schedule property - material allegations as disclosed in the plaint are summarised hereunder: the plaint schedule property originally belong to Guduru Atchamma, the mother of the first plaintiff as she got the same under registered partition deed dated 14-7-1956 between herself and defendant Nos. 1 to 3 and others. In fact, defendant Nos. 1 to 3 are the brother s son of the said Atchamma. Defendant Nos. 1 to 3, and 4th defendant who is the third respondent herein, who is the son of the first plaintiff are the partners in a registered firm called Sri Venkateswara Oil company, Tirupathi and they obtained the plaint schedule site from the said Atchamma on lease for running business in Diesel and petrol etc. , The lease commenced on 1-5-1965 on a monthly rent of Rs. 750/- The defendants had been paying rents to atchamma and obtaining receipts - Defendant Nos. 1 to 3 again evaded the service and only the fourth defendant received the notice, but he did not respond. Hence the suit - Held, Senior Advocate submits that the view expressed in the fore-going decisions was not approved by the Supreme Court in a later decision in Nair Service Society vs. K. C. Alexander (7) AIR 1968 SC 1165. He relies on the following observations made by the apex Court. "now it is a fixed principle of law that a suit must be tried on the original cause of action and this principle governs not only the trial of suits but also appeals. "in the said decision, what was considered was whether the High Court should have allowed the amendment at a very late stage in a suit filed for recovery of possession. In that connection the Supreme Court observed that Courts may allow an amendment pleading the changed circumstances to shorten the litigation and to avoid multiplicity of proceedings. This decision has no analogy to the proposition where a suit filed for recovery of possession based on tenancy relief can be granted on the basis of title on the failure of plea of tenancy. The last decision on which reliance is placed by the learned Senior Advocate for the appellants is M. Ramasamy Pillai vs. Hazarath Syed Shah (8) AIR 1992 SC 2295. In the said case, the plaintiff has come forward with the case that the defendant was a tenant holding over - FOR all the above reasons, I hold that Atchamma was the original owner and the plaintiffs are entitled to recover possession together with profits although they have failed to establish the tenancy set up by them - appeal dismissed
( 1 ) DEFENDANT Nos. 1 to 3 are the appellants. One Guduru Chengareddy, father of the third respondent filed the suit for recovery of possession of the plaint schedule vacant site, and for arrears of rent amounting to Rs. 23,250/- together with future profits.
( 2 ) THE material allegations as disclosed in the plaint are summarised hereunder: the plaint schedule property originally belong to Guduru Atchamma, the mother of the first plaintiff as she got the same under registered partition deed dated 14-7-1956 between herself and defendant Nos. 1 to 3 and others. In fact, defendant Nos. 1 to 3 are the brother s son of the said Atchamma. Defendant Nos. 1 to 3, and 4th defendant who is the third respondent herein, who is the son of the first plaintiff are the partners in a registered firm called Sri Venkateswara Oil company, Tirupathi and they obtained the plaint schedule site from the said Atchamma on lease for running business in Diesel and petrol etc. , The lease commenced on 1-5-1965 on a monthly rent of Rs. 750/- The defendants had been paying rents to atchamma and obtaining receipts. Atchamma died on 24-5-1971 leaving behind her the 1 st plaintiff, her only son. Defendant nos. 1 to 4 have attorned to the first plaintiff after the death of Atchamma in respect of the suit property and they have been paying rents to the first plaintiff regularly till december, 1974, and thereafter, they committed default in payment of rent from january, 1975 to the first plaintiff. The first plaintiff wanted the plaint schedule property for his bonafide requirement, and as the defendants did not oblige, he issued notices dated 12-5-1977 terminating the tenancy of the defendants and also to pay the arrears of rs. 23,500/ -. The defendants refused to receive the said notices. Though the fourth defendant received the notice, he did not care to reply. The first plaintiff once again sent notices dated 16-6-1977 terminating the tenancy from 1-8-1977. Defendant Nos. 1 to 3 again evaded the service and only the fourth defendant received the notice, but he did not respond. Hence the suit.
( 3 ) THE written statement filed by the third defendant was adopted by defendant nos. 1 and 2. The fourth defendant did not file any written statement. Defendants Nos. 1 to 3 denied that the plaint schedule property belonged to Atchamma. They also denied the registered partition deed dated 14-6-1956, so also their taking the plaint schedule site on lease from Atchamma on 1 -4-1965. It is further denied that they were paying any rents to Atchamma. The further allegation that they have attorned to plaintiff no. 1 as tenants is false. Issuance of notices was also denied. The fourth defendant is the son of the first plaintiff, and therefore, the suit was filed as a result of collusion between them. The plaint schedule land of Ac. 0. 94 cents is in Survey No. 150.
( 4 ) THE entire land in Survey No. 150 belonged to Konduru Venkata Narasimha charyulu from whom Krishnareddy, brother of D-5 took the land on lease under a registered lease deed dated 27-4-1937. After the death of Krishnareddy, the leasehold rights developed upon his brother, narasimhareddy who too died in 1939: On his death, the leasehold rights devolved on his brother, D-5 who has been in exclusive possession and enjoyment of Survey no. 150. Later, the fifth defendant purchased the lessor s rights under a registered sale deed dated 25-10-1964 and from then onwards, the fifth defendant has been in exclusive possession and enjoyment of the entire Survey No. 150. Patta also stands in his name. O. S. No. 84 of 64 filed by the lessor, pedda Jeeyangar against D-5 and others was dismissed on 29-7-1966. Plaintiff s mother never exercised any rights of ownership over the plaint schedule property at any time. Sri Venkateswara Oil Company in which the 4th defendant was a partner originally, was dissolved on account of the misconduct of the 4th defendant and defendant Nos. 1 to 3 alone are carrying
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
