Back
2006 Supreme(AP) 1313
Andhra Pradesh High Court
Judges : L.NARASIMHA REDDY
KONETI RAMACHANDRA, S/O.K.NARAYANA SWAMY - Appellant
Versus
G.ANJAPPA, S/O.GANGAPPA - Respondent
Decided On : 11/08/2006
SECOND APPEAL 313 Of 1995
Headnote:
Civil Law - A. P. Tenancy Act - Section 2 (6) - Perpetual injunction - Tenants - Defaulter - Lacked the jurisdiction - Claiming to be transferee of land - Existence of tenancy - Plaintiff pleaded that the suit schedule property was owned by mother of 1st defendant, and that land was leased, in, or about 1940, to one Sri Koneti Manikyarayappa, the father in law of the plaintiff - It was pleaded that ever since then, the land was in possession and enjoyment of lessee, and since he died somewhere in 1972, being the scale legal heir, the plaintiff succeeded to tenancy – Lessor is said to have died, some time 1974 and thereby, 1st defendant became the lessor – Plaintiff complained that 3rd defendant, claiming to be the transferee of the land, and the 2nd defendant, the maidservant of 1st defendant, started interfering with his possession of the suit schedule property. He claimed the relief of perpetual injunction against all the three defendants – Held, there is no basis for the contention that the 3rd defendant does not answer the description of the landlord. Even otherwise, once the 3rd defendant is found to be claiming his rights through the 1st defendant, the owner of land, he fits in o the definition of landlord under sub-section (6) of section 2 of the act – Expression used in the definition is "person deriving rights" in contradistinction to "person deriving title" – To answer the description of landlord, one does not have to be a person, holding title over the land, and it would be sufficient, if he derives the right from the recognized owner – At any rate, the 3rd defendant had derived title also – On his own accord, the plaintiff filed ATC No. 6 of 1985 before Tenancy Tribunal, with a view to enforce his righls of tenancy vis-a-vis the land – He admitted that there existed default in payment of rent – Lower appellate court rightly rejected plea of the 3rd defendant, to declare the plaintiff as defaulter, since that plea was not raised before the trial court – Court does not find any basis to interfere with judgment rendered by the lower Appellate Court – Appeal dismissed.
( 2 ) THE plaintiff pleaded that the suit schedule property admeasuring about 1 1/2 acres at Punganur village of Chittoor district, was owned by one Smt. Rani Nanjammannidevi, the mother of the 1st defendant, and that the land was leased, in, or about 1940, to one Sri Koneti Manikyarayappa, the father in law of the plaintiff. It was pleaded that ever since then, the land was in possession and enjoyment of the lessee, and since he died somewhere in 1972, being the scale legal heir, the plaintiff succeeded to the tenancy. The lessor is said to have died, some time 1974 and thereby, the 1st defendant became the lessor. The plaintiff complained that the 3rd defendant, claiming to be the transferee of the land, and the 2nd defendant, the maidservant of the 1st defendant, started interfering with his possession of the suit schedule property. He claimed the relief of perpetual injunction against all the three defendants.
( 3 ) ON behalf of fhe defendants, a common written statement was filed. It was pleaded that Rani Nanjammannidevi executed a will dated 26-01-1966, bequeoithing the property to defendants 1 and 2, and they in turn, entered into an agreement. of sale dated 24-10-1978 with the 3rd defendant and delivered possession of the suit schedule property. The sale deed is said to have been executed on 25-12-1978. The plea as to existence of tenancy was flatly denied and they pleaded that at no point of time, the plaintiff or his father in law were in possession of the suit schedule, either as tenants or otherwise. It was their case that the father in law of the plaintiff was the owner of the land adjacent to the suit schedule property and he was never their tenant. Objection as to the jurisdiction of the civil court to entertain the suit was raised. Through its judgment dated 30-09-1988 the trial court decreed the suit. The 3rd defendant filed A. S. No. 21 of 1989. The appeal was allowed on 07-04-1995, holding that the trial court lacked the jurisdiction.
( 4 ) SRI T. S. Anand, learned counsel for the plaintiff submits that when there is a serious dispute about the existence of relationship of landlord and tenant, the only forum that can adjudicate upon that dispute is the civil court, and the judgment of the lower appellate court cannot be sustained in Ibw. He contends that the 3rd defendant does not answer the description of landlord, and whatever may have been the objection as to the maintainability of the suit, vis-a-vis the defendants 1 and 2, it was certainly maintainable against the 3rd defendant. He contends that the possessory rights of plaintiff were so firmly established, that hardly there existed any doubt as to the tenancy. He has relied upon certain precedents, in support of his contentions. Sri N. Pramod, learned counsel for the defendants, on the other hand, submits that at no point of time, the plaintiff or his father-in-law were in possession of the suit schedule property, much less, they were the tenants. He contends that the only relief claimed by the plaintiff was, the one, for perpetual injunction, and the tenancy court alone is vested with the jurisdiction to grant such a relief. He submits that the plaintiff did not seek any declaration that he is the tenant over the suit schedule property and in that view of the matter, there was no occasion for him to approach the civil court. Learned counsel points out that even according to the averments in the plaint, the 3rd defendant purchased the suit schedule property, and the doubt expressed, as to the rights of the 3rd defendant, is without any basis. It is also his case that even while th
