The appellate court should not interfere with the finding of the trial court on the appreciation of evidence, particularly when the finding is supported by documentary evidence.

G. RADHAKRISHNA RAO, J.

( 1 ) THE third respondent herein, claiming to be a cultivating tenant of ac. 4-45 cents of land belonging to the petitioner herein the land-lady, in S. No. 19/1 of Venkampalam village, Chintalapudi taluk filed an application before the Tenancy Tahsildar, Chintalapudi which was tried as I. A. 1 of 1976. To substantiate his claim, the third respondent herein examined 9 witnesses and marked Exs. P-l to P-10 on his behalf. The land-lady examined five witnesses and marked Ex. B. 1 on her side. The Tenancy Tahsildar allowed that application by order dated 2-9-1977. Against that the petitioner herein the land-lady preferred an appeal T. A. No. 1 of 1976 before the Revenue Divisional Officer, who remanded the matter to the Tenancy Tahsildar for fresh disposal. After remand the third respondent herein examined P. Ws. 1 to 3 and R. Ws. 1 and 2 were examined on behalf of the land-lady C. Ws. 1 and 2 were also examined. At that stage the matter was transferred to the Special Officer the District Munsiffs Chintahatapudi and renumbered as A. T. C. No. 2 of 1980. The learned Special Officer (the District Munsif) dismissed the said petition with costs, by his order dated 13-3-1981. Against that the third respondent herein the tenant preferred an appeal A. T. A. No. 12 of 1981 before the District Judge, West Godavari at Eluru. The case ultimately set up by the third respondent herein is that originally the rent for the whole extent of land is Rs. 300. 00 and subsequently it was enhanced to Rs. 500. 00 in 1975-76 and the rent is being paid regularly. The third respondent-tenant examined himself as P. W. 1 (before remand) and his neighbours as P. Ws. 2 and 5. P. Ws. 3,4,6 and 7 are the relatives of the third respondent. The learned Judge rejected the oral evidence adduced by the tenant on the ground that the witnesses are interested and unreliable witnesses and none of them were actually present at the time of settlement of the alleged oral agreement and they have no personal knowledge about the oral leave. With regard to P. W. 8 he stated that he does not know anything whether the third respondent is a cultivating tenant or a cooly of the land-lady. On behalf of the landlady, her brother was examined as R. W. 2 R. W. 3 is the Village Munsif of Anantapalli where the petitioner herein owns land. R. Ws. 1 and 4 are the former lessees of the landlady. Taking into account the oral evidence, the Special Officer (District Munsif) dismissed the petition. Against that an appeal was preferred before the District Judge wherein the learned District Judge felt that the evidence let in does not fit in with the plea set up by the land-lady and accepted the testimony of the cultivating tenant holding that he has made out his case. Against that the present writ petition is filed by the land-lady.

( 2 ) IT is well-settled that where the original court, which has got the opportunity of observing the demeanour of the witnesses, where particularly oral evidence is crucial, came to a finding, the appellate court in appeal should not brush aside that finding merely because there are some discrepancies. If the evidence is considered on appreciation and when it is accepted by the original court, the appellate court must be very slow in interfering with a particular finding when it is supported by documentary evidence. Admittedly there is no documentary evidence in this case to show that there is a lease deed executed in favour of the third respondent-tenant.

( 3 ) THE first contention raised by Sri C. V. N. Sastry, learned counsel for the petitioner is that when none of the documents show that there is an agreement entered into between the parties regarding the lease, the appellate court was not justified in disturbing the said finding. According to the tenant Ex. P. 8 was executed after negotiations between the land-lady and the tenant on 9-5-1976. In that document the land in question is shown in possession of the landlady. Sri T. Veera-bhadri

Click Here to Read the rest of this document