Back
2025 Supreme(AP) 45
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
V.R.K.KRUPA SAGAR, J.
Gumma Ramchandraiah and Others - Petitioner
Vs.
Akili Venkata Muralikrishna - Respondent
CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 654/2010
Decided On : 21-04-2025
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : M BALANAGA SRINIVAS
For the Respondent: 1399/DUGGEMPUDI SRINIVASA RAO, DUGGEMPUDI SRINIVASA RAO
The Special Officer in eviction proceedings can address landlord-tenant relationships but cannot conclusively determine ownership rights or the validity of adoption and Wills.
Headnote:
(A) Andhra Pradesh (Andhra Area) Tenancy Act, 1956 - Sections 2(f), 2(c), 12, 13, 15, and 16 - Eviction proceedings - Tenant's claim of ownership based on alleged adoption and unregistered Will rejected - Courts affirmed landlord-tenant relationship and found default in rent payment and unauthorized subletting - Jurisdictional issues regarding the Special Officer's authority to decide adoption and Will validity addressed. (Paras 1-21)
(B) Jurisdiction of Special Officer - The Special Officer can decide incidental questions of title in eviction proceedings but cannot conclusively determine ownership rights. (Paras 19-20)
Facts of the case:
The revision petitioners, tenants of agricultural land, challenged the eviction order based on claims of ownership through adoption and a Will, which were found unproven.
Findings of Court:
The courts upheld the landlord's claims, confirming the tenant's default in rent and unauthorized subletting.
Issues: The main issues included the legitimacy of the landlord's claim and the jurisdiction of the Special Officer to decide on adoption and Will validity.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the Special Officer had the authority to address the landlord-tenant relationship but not to conclusively determine ownership rights.
Result: Civil Revision Petition dismissed.
ORDER :
V.R.K.KRUPA SAGAR, J.
Cultivating tenants of an agricultural land filed this civil revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India assailing the judgment dated 12.10.2009 of the learned I Additional District Judge, Nellore in C.M.A.No.10 of 2005, confirming the order dated 17.01.2005 of the learned Special Officer-cum-Principal Junior Civil Judge, Nellore in A.T.C.No.4 of 2000.
2. Respondent herein is the landlord. Sri P.Rajasekhar, the learned counsel representing Sri M.Balanaga Srinivas, the learned counsel for the revision petitioners submitted arguments. Despite the notice being served, none entered appearance for respondent.
3. The necessary material facts may be briefly stated here. Ac.5.15 cents of agricultural land in Survey No.1060/2 in Sarvepalli Bit-III in Tatiparthipalem Village, Venkatachalam Mandal, Nellore District of Andhra Pradesh is the subject matter of controversy. Sri Akili Chenchu Venkata Lakshmi Narasimha Rao was the absolute owner of this property. About that there has never been any dispute. He died on 03.11.1989 survived by his wife Varalakshamma and an adopted son Sri Akili Venkata Murali Krishna. They allegedly succeeded the property. Smt. Varalakshamma executed a Will dated 06.02.1998 in favour of her adopted her. She died on 03.06.1999. The adopted son Sri Akili Venkata Murali Krishna filed A.T.C.No.4 of 2000 initially as against respondent No.1- G.Ramachandraiah stating that since 1985 Sri G.Ramachandraiah has been a tenant of the above referred property and it was an oral tenancy entered into between Sri G.Ramachandraiah and the original owner Sri Akili Chenchu Venkata Lakshmi Narasimha Rao. On the death of the original owner, his successors, namely, his wife and adopted son were there and with them the tenant entered into a fresh lease and it was also an oral lease. During the time of the original owner as well as during the time of subsequent lease the tenant was paying maktha as agreed upon. However, after the death of Smt. Varalakshamma the tenant failed to pay the rents. Notices issued remained unanswered. Therefore, in terms of Sections 12 , 13 and 16 of the Andhra Pradesh (Andhra Area) Tenancy Act, 1956 , Sri Akili Venkata Murali Krishna sought for eviction of the tenants. During the pendency of A.T.C.No.4 of 2000 respondent No.2-Sri A.Ramanaiah was impleaded and thereafter three more respondents were brought on record. Respondent Nos.3, 4 and 5 were the very brothers of the first respondent - Sri G.Ramachandraiah. In the petition for eviction an additional plea was also taken up by the landlord stating that the respondents have been damaging the schedule mentioned property as they were shifting the soil from the land. It was also pleaded that in violation of the terms of tenancy the original tenant sublet the property in favour of respondent Nos.3 to 5.
4. The original tenant/Sri G.Ramachandraiah filed a counter and the remaining respondents filed a memo adopting it. Their pleaded case is that there was no jural relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties and therefore, A.T.C. could not be maintained. They denied the legal status of the petitioner-Sri Akili Venkata Murali Krishna and challenged the adoption as alleged by the petitioner. They also contend that the Will said to have been executed by Smt. Varalakshamma. They further contended that there was an agreement for sale executed in their favour by the original owner in the year 1986 and they are entitled to hold onto their possession. They denied the fresh lease said to have been entered into between the petitioner and his mother with the respondents. They prayed for dismissal of the petition.
5. Learned Special Officer-cum-Principal Junior Civil Judge, Nellore framed the following points for its consideration:
1. Whether the petitioner is the landlord of the schedule property within the meaning of Sec. 2(f) of A.P.Tenancy Act?
2. Whether there is jural relationship of landlord and tenant between the pe
