Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
V.R.K. KRUPA SAGAR, J.
Vemu Vidya Ranjan Roy – Appellant
Versus
Godavarthi Krishna Kumari – Respondent
Second Appeal No. 740 of 2015
Decided On : 22-11-2022
Civil Procedure Code, 1908 – Section 100 – Order XL1 Rule 27 – Order XX Rule 12 – Order XLII Rule 1 – Transfer of Property Act, 1882 – Section 106 – A.P. Rent Control Act, 1960 – Section, 9 – Second appeal – First Appellate – It is imperative on part of appellant to show a patent perversity in findings recorded by Courts below and to show substantial question of law that arises in this appeal – Notice before admission was granted and therefore appearance was made for respondent/plaintiff – Held, Document Nos. 3 to 8 were available with this appellant even for two years earlier to commencement of present litigation – He never thought to exhibit those documents either before trial Court or before First Appellate Court and now he believes that in name of justice and its protection these unnecessary documents should be received even though he failed to say anything relevant in his affidavits was decided – Thus even that document was available while trial was still pending before trial Court RCA was decided – That RCA confirmed order of RCC Court – Thus, appellant seeks to produce documents that do not pertain to a litigation between parties, Court has to accept contention of learned counsel for respondent that without any merits, for protracting litigation, petitioner/appellant is trying to induct certain documents – Second appeal dismissed.
JUDGMENT :
V.R.K. KRUPA SAGAR, J.
1. A sole defendant in the suit filed this second appeal under Section 100 of Civil Procedure Code. Respondent herein is the plaintiff in the suit.
2. Both the Courts below held against the defendant/appellant. Therefore, it is imperative on the part of the appellant to show a patent perversity in the findings recorded by the Courts below and to show substantial question of law that arises in this appeal. Notice before admission was granted and therefore appearance was made for respondent/plaintiff. Learned counsel on both sides submitted arguments at the stage of hearing before admission.
3. O.S. No. 38 of 2010 is a suit filed by the plaintiff against the defendant with the following prayers:
(b) for damages of Rs. 1,00,000/- to be paid by the defendant for use and occupation of suit schedule premises.
(c) costs.
(d) together with such other relief as the Hon’ble Court deems fit and proper under the circumstances of the case.
The property in dispute in that suit is described in the plaint schedule a cement roofed shed in an extent of Ac. 54½ Sq. Yards of site with specific boundaries mentioned therein situated in 9th ward, First Block-T.S. No. 24-11 and T-S No. 27/3, Tenali Municipality of Guntur District. In the plaint it is alleged that plaintiff Smt G.Krishna Kumari owned this property by virtue of a registered sale deed dated 24.07.1984. This property was purchased in her name by her father in law.
4. Sri G. Venkata Rao and Sri G. Venkata Siva Prasad are brothers to each other. Sri G. Venkata Rao is the husband of the plaintiff. Smt Rama Tulasamma is the wife of Sri G. Venkata Siva Prasad. Father in law of the plaintiff also purchased another tiled shed adjoining the plaint schedule property and that was purchased in the name of Smt Rama Tulasamma who is co-sister in law to the plaintiff.
5. Sri G. Ventakta Siva Prasad has been maintaining the property of his own wife and also the property of the plaintiff mentioned in the plaint schedule.
6. After the year 1994 disputes cropped up between the brothers and their father. In those circumstances, plaintiff’s father in law and plaintiff’s husband filed O.S. No. 166 of 2005 against Sri G. Venkata Siva Prasad and his men praying for permanent injunction. The said G. Venkata Siva Prasad filed O.S. No. 85 of 2006 seeking for partition of the properties. Sri G. Venkata Siva Prasad prompted the defendant/Sri Vemu Vidyaranjanroy and made him to file O.S. No. 570 of 2005 for permanent injunction as against the plaintiff and her husband. This plaintiff received summons in that suit and on receiving such summons she for the first time came to know that the present plaint schedule property is under possession of the present suit defendant. In the injunction suit filed by the defendant in O.S. No. 570 of 2005 he claimed his status as tenant under oral lease. The defendant herein is a trespasser and therefore plaintiff is entitled for damages to an extent of Rs. 1 Lakh for the entire period of his un-lawful occupation of this property. However, as this defendant pleaded oral tenancy in that injunction suit claiming that he was paying a monthly rent of Rs. 2,500/- the defendant can at best called a tenant holding over.
7. The son of the plaintiff is a Software Engineer and is desirous of establishing a business in the plaint schedule property. In the above referred circumstances plaintiff got issued a notice under Section 106 of Transfer of Property Act directing the defendant to vacate the plaint schedule property. Defendant received it and issued a reply notice with false allegations. In these circumstances, the suit is filed for eviction with the prayers that are referred earlier.
8. Defendant con
The court affirmed that a lease is terminated by efflux of time and issuance of quit notices, leading to unauthorized possession by the tenant, with no substantial question of law for appeal.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the application of Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, to establish the existence of the oral tenancy and the bonafide requirement o....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the status of a person occupying a property as a tenant or licensee must be proven by the standard of a man of ordinary prudence, and the evid....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
