Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
VENUTHURUMALLI GOPALA KRISHNA RAO, J.
Aitha Venkata Rama Rao - Appellant
Vs.
Bondada Sree Ramakrishna Paramahamsa (Died) and others - Respondent
SECOND APPEAL NO: 276/2019
Decided On : 22-04-2025
(A) Civil Procedure Code, 1908 - Section 100 - Transfer of Property Act, 1882 - Section 52 - Second appeal against concurrent findings of fact - Plaintiffs sought recovery of possession and damages for unauthorized occupation - The trial court decreed the suit, confirming ownership of plaintiffs post mother's death and tenant's obligation to vacate - The appellate court upheld the trial court's decision, finding no substantial question of law raised by the defendant. (Paras 1, 10, 26)
(B) Tenant's Rights - A tenant cannot acquire title against the true owner, and the rights of subsequent purchasers are protected under law - The court emphasized that a tenant must vacate upon termination of lease and cannot dictate terms to landlords or subsequent purchasers. (Paras 27, 28)
Facts of the case:
The plaintiffs, as legal heirs of the original owner, sought possession of property from the defendant, who claimed tenancy rights based on a lease agreement that had expired. The plaintiffs had previously issued a quit notice, and the defendant failed to vacate.
Findings of Court:
The court confirmed that the plaintiffs were the absolute owners post the death of their mother and that the defendant's lease had expired, thus requiring him to vacate the premises.
Issues: The main issues included the entitlement of plaintiffs to possession and damages, and whether the appellate court's findings were legally sound.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the defendant failed to establish any substantial question of law, and the concurrent findings of both lower courts were upheld.
Result: Second appeal dismissed, confirming the judgments and decrees of both lower courts.
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 Additional Junior Civil Judge, Bhimavaram, decreed the suit with costs directing the defendant to deliver possession of the plaint schedule shop room to the plaintiffs 1, 3 and 4 after his eviction and also to pay damages at the rate of Rs.500/- per day for unauthorized use and occupation of the plaint schedule property from 01-11-2008 till delivery of possession of the plaint schedule property. Felt aggrieved of the same, the unsuccessful defendant in the above said suit filed the aforesaid appeal suit before the first appellate Court. The learned III Additional District Judge, Bhimavaram, dismissed the first appeal with costs by confirming the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court. Aggrieved thereby, the unsuccessful defendant/appellant approached this Court by way of second appeal.
5. For the sake of convenience, both parties in the second appeal will be referred to as they are arrayed in the original suit.
6. The case of the plaintiffs, in brief, as set out in the plaint averments in O.S.No.19 of 2009, is as follows:
(a) It is pleaded that the plaint schedule property originally belonged to one Smt. Bondada Sesharatnam, mother of plaintiffs 1 and 2, who executed a registered settlement deed on 17-01-1983 in favour of plaintiffs 1 and 2 by reserving life interest for herself and by giving vested remainder rights in the schedule property to her sons, the plaintiffs 1 and 2 herein. The said settlement deed was duly attested and accepted by the plaintiffs 1 and 2. Smt. Sesharatnam died on 10-5-2005, hence the donees have acquired absolute rights in the schedule property and they became absolute owners of the same.
(b) It is further pleaded that the defendant is the tenant of the plaint schedule premises since 01-11-2002 by taking the schedule property on lease from the said Sesharatnam and both of them entered into a registered lease agreement dated 23-01-2003, which discloses that the period of lease is for six years i.e. from 01-11-2002 to 31-10-2008, that the lessee-defendant has to pay a monthly rent of Rs.5,000/- to the lessor Smt. Bondada Sesharatnam, that the lessee has to obtain receipt for payment of the monthly rent and that the lessee-defendant shall not give the plaint schedule property on sub-lease to anybody. The said registered lease deed dated 23-01-2003 also stipulates that the lessee-defendant shall vacate the lease hold plaint schedule property immediately after the lease period is over and if the defendant fails to vacate the schedule premises, he has to pay Rs.500/- per day towards damages for use and occupation. The defendant attorned to the plaintiffs 1 and 2 after the death of their mother and used to pay the rentals to them.
(c) It is further pleaded that prior to expiry of the lease period, the plaintiffs 1 and 2 requested
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.
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
