Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
K. MANMADHA RAO, J.
Gonuguntla Ramesh Naidu, S/o Ramaiah Naidu died per his LR – Appellant
Versus
Maddirala Venkateswarlu – Respondent
S.A.No.1339 of 2007 and C.R.P.No.6026 of 2018
Decided on : 14-07-2023
EVIDENCE - PROPERTY DISPUTE - [Section 151 of C.P.C] - [Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act] - [Article 227 of the Constitution of India] - The court heard and disposed of a Second Appeal and a C.R.P concerning a property dispute. The plaintiff filed a suit for eviction and delivery of possession of the property, alleging non-payment of rent by the defendants. The trial court dismissed the suit, but the first appellate court allowed the appeal, decreeing the suit for eviction and recovery of arrears of rent. The defendants filed a Second Appeal and a C.R.P, challenging the first appellate court's decision. The court allowed both the Second Appeal and the C.R.P, setting aside the first appellate court's judgment and dismissing the suit.
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiff filed a suit for eviction and delivery of possession of the property, alleging non-payment of rent by the defendants. The trial court dismissed the suit, but the first appellate court allowed the appeal, decreeing the suit for eviction and recovery of arrears of rent.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the first appellate court had not considered the material aspects and failed to appreciate the findings of the trial court. It opined that the first appellate court had not dealt with the issue in the right perspective. Therefore, it allowed the Second Appeal and the C.R.P, setting aside the first appellate court's judgment and dismissing the suit.
Issues: The issues involved in the case included the entitlement of the plaintiff for vacant possession of the property, arrears of rent, and the landlord and tenant relationship between the parties.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the failure of the first appellate court to consider the material aspects and appreciate the findings of the trial court. It found that the first appellate court had not dealt with the issue in the right perspective.
Final Decision: The Second Appeal and C.R.P were allowed by a Common Judgment, setting aside the first appellate court's judgment and dismissing the suit.
JUDGMENT :
The Second Appeal has been filed assailing the Judgment and Decree dated 01.10.2007, passed in A.S.No.18 of 2006 by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Rayachoty. The learned District Judge, while allowing the appeal filed by the plaintiff, had set aside the decree and Judgment dated 03.07.2006 of the learned Principal Junior Civil Judge, Rayachoty passed in O.S.No.43 of 2001.
2. This Revision Petition, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, is preferred against the order, dated 05.09.2018, in E.A.No.53 of 2018 in E.P.No.24 of 2013 on the file of the Court of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Rayachoty, which is filed under Section 151 of C.P.C seeking relief to consider the changes occurred in the boundaries of the E.P schedule property and direct the Court Amin to deliver the property to the Decree Holder.
3. Since the issue involved in Second Appeal and C.R.P is one and the same, the same are heard and are being disposed of by this common Judgment.
4. The parties will herein after be referred to as they are arrayed in the Original Suit for the sake of convenience.
5. The plaintiff filed suit in O.S.No. 43 of 2001 on the file of the Court of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Rayachoty against the defendants for eviction and delivery of possession of the suit schedule property and to direct the defendants to pay arrears of rent of Rs. 11,700/- up to the end of January, 2001 and future rent from the date of suit till delivery of the suit schedule property with costs. The averments in the plaint, in brief are as under:-
The plaintiff purchased the suit schedule property from the 1st defendant under a Registered Sale Deed dated 16.09.1998 and constructed a Zinc Sheet shed therein. He let out the same to the 1st defendant on a monthly rent of Rs. 1,300/- under a lease agreement, that the defendants 1 to 3 have started hotel business and started paid rents up to April-2000, later failed to pay the rents since may, 2000 onwards. Hence the suit.
6. Per contra, the defendants filed Written Statement by denying all material averments made in the plaint and contended that the 1st defendant borrowed an amount of Rs. 60,000/- and executed a Sale Deed dated 16.09.1998 in favour of the plaintiff. The 1st defendant raised temporary zinc sheet shed in the suit schedule property for the purpose of running hotel therein. Further it was agreed to reconvey the said property after discharge of the amount borrowed by the 1st defendant and later he paid an amount of Rs. 50,000/- on 29.06.2000. Further the defendant never executed lease agreement dated 15.09.1999 and did not pay any rent to the plaintiff. The alleged lease agreement dated 15.09.1999 is created and fabricated document. Therefore the suit is liable to be dismissed.
7. Based on the above pleadings, the trial court eventually framed the following issues for trial:
2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled arrears of the rent of Rs. 11,700/- upto January 2001 and also future rent from February-2001 till the date of delivery of the suit?
3. To what relief?
8. During the course of trial PWs-1 to 6 were examined on behalf of the plaintiff and Exs.A1 to A4 were marked and on behalf of the defendants, DWs-1 and 4 were examined and marked Ex.B1 to B13.
9. After full-fledged trial, the trial could held that the plaintiff failed to establish the relationship of the land-lord and tenant and also quantum of rent and service of notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act and therefore he is not entitled for eviction and delivery of possession of the suit schedule property and dismissed the suit with costs.
10. Assailing the said judgment and decree of the trial court, the plaintiff preferred an appeal in A.S.No. 18 of 2006. The first appellate court has framed the following points for consideration in the Appeal:
The main legal point established in the judgment is the importance of considering material aspects and appreciating the findings of the trial court in property dispute cases.
The plaintiff must substantiate ownership independently to succeed in a suit for declaration of title, which cannot rely solely on the defendant's weaknesses.
A second appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure must involve substantial questions of law, and unregistered tenancy agreements cannot establish non-evictable rights.
Appellate court cannot admit additional evidence under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC absent due diligence proof or necessity for judgment; must record reasons; erroneous allowance despite negligence and delay....
The jurisdiction of the High Court in second appeals is limited to substantial questions of law, and it will not interfere with concurrent findings of fact unless such questions arise.
Possession and tax payments over time can support claims of adverse possession and contractual rights, requiring courts to consider all relevant evidence.
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
