The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement of necessary pleadings and the production of the agreement for sale to claim the benefit under Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act. The court also clarified that the failure to prove the alleged tenancy did not disentitle the plaintiff from claiming possession based on her general title.

JUDGMENT

1. This appeal under section 96 CPC is from defendant No.1 in the suit. He assails the judgment dated 20.01.2010 of learned III Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court, Bhimavaram in O.S.No.80 of 1999.

2. 1st respondent herein was the sole plaintiff in the said suit. 2nd and 3rd respondents were the 2 and 3rd defendants in the suit.

3. The dispute is about four items of immovable properties situate in Kalla Village. They are described in the plaint as A schedule properties. In the suit, the plaintiff claimed title over these schedule properties. Plaint contains detailed averments as to the source of title claimed by the plaintiff. Item Nos.1, 2 and 3 of plaint - A schedule are stated to be exclusively owned by the plaintiff. Item No.4 of the plaint - A schedule is also claimed to be the exclusive property of the sole plaintiff. Defendant Nos.2 and 3 in the suit were originally not parties to the suit. They are very children of the sole plaintiff. After they came on record with a claim that item No.4 of the plaint - A schedule belonged to their father and therefore their mother alone could not be the sole owner of it and they also hold share over that property. It is only with reference to item No.4, the defendant Nos.2 and 3 laid their claim. During the course of trial, plaintiff admitted the plea of her children/ defendant Nos.2 and 3. On rest of the contentions, they sailed with the plaintiff.

4. In the plaint, it is stated that the plaint schedule lands have been used as fish and prawn tanks. Plaintiff had allegedly leased them out to defendant No.1 on an annual rent of Rs.1,69,000/-. Defendant No.1 fell in arrears. Plaintiff sent a lawyer's notice to defendant No.1 terminating the lease and demanding eviction. In the reply given by defendant No.1, he alleged title for himself over plaint - A schedule properties. It was in such circumstances, the plaintiff sued for declaration of her title over the plaint schedule properties with a direction to the defendant No.1 to deliver vacant possession of these properties to the plaintiff and further for Rs.5,07,000/- towards arrear rents or damages for use and occupation and for future profits and for costs and such other reliefs.

5. Defendant No.1 filed a detailed written statement. The contentions raised by defendant No.1 are manifold. It is stated that the general power of attorney holder of plaintiff and her husband approached defendant No.1 to sell the properties and defendant No.1 agreed to purchase plaint - A schedule properties for a total consideration of Rs. 2,45,410/- and to that affect an agreement for sale was entered into between them on 04.03.1992. On the date of agreement for sale, defendant No.1 paid Rs.45,410 and thereafter on 28.03.1992, he paid Rs.80,000/- and on 14.04.1992, he paid Rs.60,000/- and on 22.05.1992, he paid balance sale consideration of Rs.60,000/-to this general power of attorney holder. On 22.05.1992, defendant No.1 obtained possession over the plaint schedule properties and since then he has been in enjoyment of these properties. Defendant No.1 denied the allegations about tenancy pleaded in the plaint. It is then stated that this defendant had come to know about plaintiff cancelling general power of attorney given to her agent and thereafter defendant No.1 enquired about nature of the properties and came to realise that the plaintiff had no title over the lands and he was deceived. That the plaint - A schedule lands are Revenue waste lands. It is further pleaded by defendant No.1 that he himself is in possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule lands and his name is mutated in the Revenue records. It is specifically pleaded that the plaintiff has no right in the schedule properties and this defendant alone had got right title and possession over the plaint schedule properties. He finally sought dismissal of the suit. Defendant No.2 and 3 filed their written statements concerning item No.4 of the plaint - A schedule as referred already