JUDGMENT :

The defendants 3 to 5 are the appellants. The respondents were the plaintiffs 2 to 4 and have been the legal representatives of the original plaintiff late Sri Rudraraju Venkataraju. He died during pendency of the suit and hence the respondents were brought on record as his L.Rs. The defendants 1 and 2 are not parties to this appeal and to the cross-objections. The 1st respondent presented the cross-objections.

2. The decree and judgment in O.S.No. 69 of 1987 dated 23.07.1996 on the file of the Court of the learned Subordinate Judge, Razole (Senior Civil Judge) is questioned in this appeal as well as in the cross-objections.

3. A decree for Rs.19,000/-(Rupees nineteen thousand only) with proportionate costs thereon with future interest at 6% p.a. from the date of the presentation of the plaint till realization was granted by the trial Court against the appellants and in favour of the respondents 1 to 3, while dismissing remaining part of their claim in the suit, without costs. The suit was also dismissed against the defendants 1 and 2.

4. Before considering and evaluating the material and evidence on record in this appeal, it is desirable to know the case of the respondents in the plaint and the defence in the written statement, of the appellants.

5. The original plaintiff Sri late Rudraraju Venkataraju was undisputedly the owner of the plaint schedule property (for short, ‘the suit house’). It is in ward No.3, R.S.No.97/7A in an extent of Ac.0-12 cents at Malkipuram Gram Panchayat of East Godavari District. Since it was a new construction, no door number as such was assigned to it.

6. The original plaintiff averred in the plaint that for the purpose of the branch of then Sri Konaseema Cooperative Central Bank at Malkipuram, they approached him to let out the suit house and requested him to make certain alterations to the suit house as suggested by the 1st appellant-General Manager. The rent was agreed at Rs.1000/-per month and it was the case of the original plaintiff in the plaint that as suggested by the then Manger of this cooperative bank viz., the 3rd appellant, he gave a letter to this bank. It is also the case of the original plaintiff in the plaint that this proposal was approved in the Board meeting of the bank on 05.09.1986, which consisted of the General Manager, the Deputy Registrar of Cooperative Societies and the Revenue Divisional Officer, being the chairman of this Board.

7. It is further averred in the plaint that the original plaintiff was informed of the same by a memo dated 11.09.1986 sent to the 3rd appellant, a copy of which was marked to the original plaintiff and that the 3rd appellant addressed a letter to the original plaintiff on 15.09.1986 calling upon to complete the alterations to the building for immediate occupation, while requesting the original plaintiff to execute a formal agreement constituting the terms already agreed and settled among them. The plaint sets out the alterations to be made being construction of a strong room, a stationery room, a office room, two bathrooms and latrines and residential quarters for the Manager of this branch.

8. It is also averred in the plaint that the original plaintiff spent more than Rs.25,000/- to make these alterations and informed the appellants of the same, while also bringing to their notice that the building was ready for occupation, even before 01.10.1986. The original plaintiffs, as per the averments in the plaint, had to spend Rs.6000/-for construction of the strong room particularity. Thereafter, a number of representations to different authorities were made as per the averments in the plaint including the 1st appellant. Since there was no action from them to take over this building for the purpose of the branch, the details of which are set out in the plaint, ultimately, as per the averments in the plaint, the original plaintiff had to issue a legal notice dated 26.08.1987 purportedly under Section 80 CPC to all the concerned including the 1