Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
VENUTHURUMALLI GOPALA KRISHNA RAO
Aitha Venkata Rama Rao – Appellant
Versus
Bondada Sree Ramakrishna Paramahamsa (Died) – Respondent
Judgment :
This second appeal is filed aggrieved against the Judgment and decree dated 23-3-2019 in A.S.No.5 of 2016 on the file of the III Additional District Judge, Bhimavaram, West Godavari District, confirming the Judgment and decree dated 16-12-2015 in O.S.No.19 of 2009 on the file of the I Additional Junior Civil Judge, Bhimavaram.
2. The appellant herein is the defendant and the respondents 1 to 4 herein are the plaintiffs in O.S.No.19 of 2009 on the file of the I Additional Junior Civil Judge, Bhimavaram. Respondents 5 and 6 are brought on record as legal representatives of deceased respondent No.1. Respondents 7 to 10 are impleaded on record in the second appeal as per the orders in I.A.No.1 of 2022.
3. The plaintiffs 1 and 2 initiated action in O.S.No.19 of 2009 on the file of the I Additional Junior Civil Judge, Bhimavaram, with a prayer for recovery of possession of the plaint schedule premises after evicting the defendant and for damages for unauthorized occupation of schedule premises. During the pendency of the suit, plaintiffs 3 and 4 were added as legal representatives of the deceased 2nd plaintiff as per orders dated 24-6-2014 in I.A.No.217 of 2012.
4. The learned I A
A tenant cannot acquire title against the true owner, and the rights of subsequent purchasers are protected under law, emphasizing the obligation to vacate upon lease termination.
A second appeal under Section 100 of the Civil Procedure Code requires the identification of substantial questions of law, which was not demonstrated in this case.
The court reaffirmed that a second appeal can only be entertained when a substantial question of law arises, not mere factual disputes or allegations lacking proof.
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 court upheld the trial court's decision that the 2nd defendant's claim of tenancy was unsubstantiated and the plaintiffs were entitled to recover possession of the property.
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.
A tenant who has not responded to eviction notices and continues occupancy cannot later dispute the title of the new owner, solidifying the principle that a tenant's obligation persists despite owner....
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.
In injunction suits, the plaintiff must establish possession and title; revenue records are not conclusive proof of ownership.
In a suit for declaration of title, the burden of proof lies on the plaintiff to establish a clear case for granting such relief, not on the weaknesses of the defendant's case.
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
