CHINTALAPATI PURUSHOTTAMA SASTRY Vs. YARLAGADDA NAGARAJA RAO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is by the plaintiff. Plaintiff questions the decree of the lower appellate Court, which has granted relief of declaration to the appellant/plaintiff, but has denied the relief of recovery of possession on the ground that the said relief falls within the jurisdiction of the authority of A.P. Tenancy Act and that the Civil Court has no jurisdiction to grant the said relief of recovery. Aggrieved by the said appellate decree the plaintiff has preferred this second appeal.

(2.) THE respondent No.4 herein, who is also defendant No.4 in the trial Court and respondent No.4 before the lower appellate Court has preferred cross-objections to the extent of adverse finding against the said cross appellant in the impugned judgment of the lower appellate Court.

(3.) IT is claimed that the suit land was under cultivation by defendant No.1 as lessee right from 1968 onwards and as the defendant No.1 committed default in payment of lease amount and did not pay the same in spite of demand under Ex.A4, defendant No.1 vacated the suit land in the year 1969. The plaintiff claims that she purchased the suit land under agreement of sale dated 20.11.1969 and on coming to know of it defendant Nos.1 and 4 gave a notice to Sri K.V.S. Sastry as well as the plaintiff under Ex.A6. After that plaintiff purchased the suit property under registered sale deed dated 21.9.1974 through Sri K. V.S. Sastry, GPA of Smt. K. Sampurnasarada. Meanwhile, having vacated the land in 1969 it is alleged that plaintiff re-entered the land in 1970 whereupon the vendor of the plaintiff filed ATP No. 194 of 1979 Fasli 1379 Fasli against defendant No.1 for declaration that he is not a cultivating tenant. Ex.A8 is the tenancy petition and Ex.A9 is the counter filed by defendant No.1. After purchase of the property by plaintiff the plaintiffs vendor as well as the plaintiff issued notices under Exs.A10 and A12 to defendant No.1 respectively but there was no reply.