( 1 ) DEFENDANTS in O. S. No. 46 of 1994, on the file of the Senior civil Judge, Tadepalligudem, are the appellants.

( 2 ) THE 1st respondent filed the suit, pleading that her husband, late Suryanarayana, purchased the suit schedule premises, through sale deed dated 15. 3. 1948, and thereafter, executed a settlement deed dated 19. 8. 1966, marked as Ex. A-1, creating life interest in her, and thereafter, in favour of her son, by name gopalam, and the vested remainder, in favour of male children of said Gopalam. According to her, the premises were leased to the father of the appellants, by name Someswara Rao in the year 1963, and after execution of Ex. A-2, the tenancy stood attorned to her. Someswara Rao is said to have executed a lease deed for a period of 11 months, in favour of the 1st respondent, on 5. 1. 1968, marked as Ex. A-3. Reference was made to the fact that late Suryanarayana borrowed certain amounts from Someswara Rao and repaid the same. It was alleged that Someswara Rao failed to pay the rents from December 1977 onwards, and-in spite of issuance of notice, marked as Ex. A-6, neither the premises were vacated, nor the rent was paid. She prayed for eviction of appellants and recovery of arrears of rents.

( 3 ) ON behalf of the appellants, a written statement was filed, disputing the contents of the plaint. It was pleaded that the 1st respondent had already filed RCC No. 5 of 1990, before the Rent controller, Tadepalligudem, and that the suit is not maintainable. It was alleged that only a vacant site was leased, and that the constructions were brought about, at a later point of time, by the appellants themselves. An oral sale of the suit schedule premises was also pleaded. In the alternative, it was alleged that the lease was fur an indefinite period, and that they cannot be evicted. It was also alleged that notice, as required under Section 106 of the transfer of Property Act, for short "the Act", did not precede the filing of the suit. They have also taken the plea that they have perfected the title by adverse possession.

( 4 ) THE trial court framed necessary issues, and decreed the suit, through judgment, date 20. 9. 2000. Aggrieved thereby, the appellants filed A. S. No. 160 of 2000, in the Court of 1 Additional district Judge, West Godavari at Eluru. During the pendency of the appeal, respondents 2 and 3 have purchased the suit schedule property from the 1st respondent. Hence, they were impleaded as parties to the appeal. The appeal was dismissed on 30. 12. 2005. Hence this Second Appeal.

( 5 ) LEARNED counsel for the appellants, submits that the suit was filed by the 1st respondent, at a time, when RCC No. 5 of 1990 was pending, and that it was not at all maintainable. He contends that no notice, under Section 106 of the Act, was issued and that the notice, which was marked as Ex. A-6, does not hold good, for the purpose of these proceedings. Learned counsel submits that the 1st respondent, who was the sole plaintiff before the trial court, was not examined as a witness, and thereby, the suit claim cannot be said to have been proved. He had placed reliance upon certain judgments, in support of his contentions.

( 6 ) LEARNED counsel for the 1st respondent, and respondents 2 and 3 on the other hand, submits that though RCC No. 5 of 1990 was filed, the appellants themselves took a plea that the RCC was not maintainable, on the ground that lease was in respect of a vacant site, and in that view of the matter, the suit was filed. They pleaded that once RCC No. 5 of 1990 was dismissed, on the plea taken by the respondents, no objection, as to the maintainability of the suit can be raised. They further contend that Ex. A-6 was issued, requiring the appellants to vacate the premises, and that the same would hold good, for the purpose of this suit also. The non-examination of the 1st respondent is said to be, on account of her age and bad health. They further pleaded that no substantial question of law arises f

Click Here to Read the rest of this document