IMPORTANT POINTS
(1) Tenant cannot claim adverse possession against his landlord/lessor.
(2) Second Appeal – Under Section 100 of CPC High Court cannot interfere with findings of fact arrived at by First Appellate Court which is final Court of facts.

JUDGMENT

This second appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure (“C.P.C.” for short) is filed aggrieved against the Judgment and decree, dated 20.04.2010 in A.S.No.28 of 2005, on the file of the XI Additional District & Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), Guntur at Tenali (“First Appellate Court” for short), reversing the Judgment and decree, dated 16.11.2004 in O.S.No.175 of 2000, on the file of Additional Senior Civil Judge, Tenali (“Trial Court” for short).

2. The appellant herein is the defendant and the respondent herein is the plaintiff in O.S.No.175 of 2000, on the file of Additional Senior Civil Judge, Tenali. During the pendency of the appeal suit, the respondent i.e., plaintiff died and his sole legal representative brought on record as 2nd respondent in the appeal suit.

3. The plaintiff initiated action in O.S.No.175 of 2000 with a prayer for declaration of his title to the plaint schedule property and for recovery of the same from the defendant and for costs.

4. The learned trial Judge dismissed the suit without costs. Felt aggrieved of the same, the unsuccessful plaintiff in the above said suit filed A.S.No.28 of 2005, on the file of the XI Additional District & Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), Guntur at Tenali. The learned First Appellate Judge allowed the appeal by setting aside the decree and judgment passed by the learned trial Judge. Aggrieved thereby, the defendant in the said suit approached this Court by way of second appeal.

5. For the sake of convenience, both parties in the appeal will be referred to as they are arrayed in the original suit.

6. The case of the plaintiff, in brief, as set out in the plaint averments in O.S.No.175 of 2000, is as follows:

The plaint schedule property originally belongs to Cherukuri Amrutha Rao and Thokala China Hanumantu. The plaintiff and his wife-Satyavathi purchased an extent of Ac.0-05 cents and Ac.0-04 ½ cents under two separate registered sale deeds, dated 28.04.1972 and 01.02.1955 respectively. Thereafter, the plaintiff and his wife are in possession and enjoyment of the same. Later, the wife of the plaintiff sold an extent of Ac.0-0 ½ cent out of Ac.0-04 ½ cents to one Annamma on 01.05.1955 under a registered sale deed. The plaintiff and his wife are in possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property. Thereafter, the plaintiff gave the plaint schedule property to the defendant on a monthly rent of Rs.20/- in the year 1989. The defendant erected a thatched house therein and living therein. The defendant paying rent to the plaintiff continuously up to 1996. Thereafter, the defendant failed to pay the rent. The plaintiff requested the defendant to pay the rent due, but the defendant postpone the payment of rent on one pretext or the other. Later, the plaintiff filed a suit in O.S.No.68 of 1996 for injunction before the Court of Principal Junior Civil Judge, Repalle. When the suit was filed by the plaintiff, the defendant took the matter before the elders and the elders pacified the dispute between them on a condition the defendant should vacate from the plaint schedule property within three months from the date of settlement. The plaintiff withdraw his suit as per the advice of the elders. After death of the wife of plaintiff, he became the absolute owner of the plaint schedule property. The plaintiff got issued a legal notice to the defendant calling upon him to deliver vacant possession of the plaint schedule property and the defendant got issued a reply with false allegations and that the plaintiff is constrained to file the suit.

7. The defendant filed written statement before the trial Court denying the averments in the plaint. The brief averments in the written statement are as follows:

A suit for injunction was filed by the plaintiff in the Court of Principal Junior Civil Judge, Repalle in O.S.No.68 of 1996 and the same was dismissed on 09.12.1999. The plaintiff filed the suit in O.S.No.68 of 1996 for permanent injunction restraining th