PUSAPATI RAMABHADRA RAJU Vs. AYITHA RAMANNA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) One Ramanna is the first respondent before me. He was in possession of certain lands under a lease. He also claimed that he was entitled to occupancy rights over those lands. Alleging that he had been wrongfully and forcibly dispossessed of the lands by defendants 1 to 3 and others, he filed a suit O. S. No. 310 of 1944 on the file of the Court of the District Munsif, Vizianagaram to recover possession of the lands under S. 9 of the Specific Relief Act. The District Munsif decreed the suit. Thereupon the lessors filed a suit, O. S. No. 24 of 1945 on the file of the Sub Court Visakha-patnam, praying for a declaration that Ramanna had no occupancy rights in the suit lands and for possession.

(2.) During the pendency of the suit, the original lessors sold the property to Pusapati Ramabhadra Raju vs. Ayitha Ramanna and Ors. (20.03.1951 - MADHC) Page 1 of 3 a plaintiff in the suit. The Sub Court pronounced its judgment on 30th September 1947, holding that Ramanna had no occupancy rights but that he was nevertheless entitled to remain in possession as he was a lessee and there had been no valid notice to quit. From the decision of the Subordinate Judge, there were two appeals, one by Ramanna and the other by the plaintiffs, but both of them failed being dismissed on 14th February 1949. On 29th December 1947, that is to say, while the appeals were still pending the plaintiffs purported to issue a notice to quit to Ramanna. That is said to have been returned as refused to by Ramanna. Ramanna then applied for execution of the decree he had obtained in O. S. No. 310 of 1944. The plaitiffs obstructed the delivery of possession and thereupon Ramanna applied to have obstruction removed. The basis of the objection was that since the Courts had found that Ramanna was entitled to be in possession only as a lessee and since that lease had been terminated by a valid notice to quit his right to recover possession ceased to exist and that, therefore, the decree in O. S. No. 310 of 1944 could not be executed. The learned District Munsif overruled the objection and directed that delivery should be effected. An appeal to the District Judge having filed Ramabhadra Raju the purchaser has come to this Court.

(3.) Mr. B. V. Subramaniam, the learned advocate for the appellant, argued that the decision of the Courts below was wrong because an executing Court just like a trial Court must take notice of facts that have happened subsequent to the passing of the decree or the institution of the suit as the case may be and that where the jural basis on which the decree was passed has since the date of the decree ceased to exist the executing Court should refuse to execute the decree. In support of this argument he referred me to the decision of Venkataramana Rao J. in 'Annamalai v. Sri-nivasaraghava', AIR (25) 1938 Mad 293. Towards the end of the judgment the learned Judge remarked :