KODANDARAMAYYA, J.

( 1 ) THESE two appeals arise out of an original suit filed by Sanjeevaiah Nagar Co-operative House Building Society Ltd. , represented by its President P. Jayaprakash Reddy. C. C. C. A. No. 66/85 is filed by the first defendant and C. C. C. A. No. 64/85 is filed by defendants 2 to 4 who are the wife and Children of the first defendant.

( 2 ) THE suit was laid for a perpetual injunction, restraining the defendants from interfering with the plaintiffs possession on the ground that the Society purchased the property under four sale deeds Exs. A-l to A-4, and the first defendant and his father one Megham Reddy, who was protected tenant, have no rights as they have surrendered their rights and in fact, the first defendant executed Ex. A-11 confirming the surrender. The first defendant denied the execution of the deed Ex. A-11. His wife and children who are the other defends, filed separate written statements supporting him. On this controversy, the Court below framed issues, as found in paragraph 5 of the judgment, and held that the denial of execution of Ex. A-11 by the first defendant was not true and once Ex. A-ll is true, the plaintiff who purchased the property from the landholder, is entitled to the injunction, as prayed for and consequently decreed the suit, as prayed for. Against the said judgment and decree these two appeals are filed.

( 3 ) I shall take up the appeal C. C. C. A. 66/85 first filed by the first defendant, as he may not be having independent rights, and the result of this appeal should follow in the other appeal also. Mr. M. S. Narayanacharlu, learned counsel for the first defendant, argued that admittedly the first defendant is a protected tenant, governed by the piovisions of the Andhra Pradesh (Telangana area) Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, XXI of 1950, hereinafter referred to as the Act, and Ex. A-11 is not true and apart from its truth it is not valid as Section 19 of the Act is not attracted. It is refuted by Mr. N. Ramachandra rao, learned counsel for the plaintiff, stating that the Court below found that ex. A-l 1 is true and hence he is estopped from contending that he has surrendered possession and the surrender made by him is not valid. He also raised a further contention that as per Section 102, the provisions of the Act have no application and hence the provisions of Section 19 are not attracted.

( 4 ) IT is seen that two questions arise for consideration in those appeals. In view of the fact that the status of the first defendant as protected tenant is not in dispute the plaint itself proceeded on the basis that the first defendant s father Megham Reddy was a protected tenant and the first defendant also is a protected tenant but he has surrendered his rights for consideration and contrary to that he is disputing the possession of the plaintiff. It is now to be seen whether the rights of the protected tenant are properly alienated to the plaintiff, and this depends upon two questions whether Ex. A-11 is true and whether it is valid. On the first question, the Court below compared the signatures on the written statement and the vakalat and found them to be identical with the signature of the first defendant and it also accepted the evidence of P. W. 2, the brother of the first defendant. I am not persuaded to accept the finding in unqualified manner. When 1 compared the signatures, 1 found them to be materially different. But, I do not want to finally adjudicate this question between the parties as it is open to the plaintiff to pursue his remedies on the strength of Ex. A-l 1 after proving independently its truth and binding nature on the first defendant. Now, I proceed on the basis that assuming Ex. A-11 is true, it is not efficacious against the first defendant, as the provisions of Section 19 of the Act are not attracted. Under the terms of the deed Ex. A-11, the first defendant purported to surrender his rights and gave up his rights of tenancy. Section 19 of the Ac

Click Here to Read the rest of this document