TATIPAMULA NARAYANA Vs. HAJJARN LINGADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) One Tatipamula Narayana, who was the objector before the Deputy Collector, Kamareddy, is the petitioner before this Court. The facts are briefly as follows :- One Anant Bejgam Lakshmaiah was the owner of certain properties comprised in S. Nos. 212 and 175 situated at the village of Kalwaral, Kamareddy Taluk, Nizamabad district. The first respondent in this Civil Revision Petition was a tenant of these lands for a period of over 30 years. He was a protected tenant within the meaning of section 34 of the Hyderabad Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act (XXI of 1950) (hereinafter referred to as the Act). He became entitled under the terms thereof to purchase the land from the landlord. According to him, he entered into an agreement with the second respondent, the son of the aforesaid Lakshmaiah after the latter's death for the purchase of the lands in his occupation for a sum of Rs. 440. He paid a sum of Rs. 400 at the time of sale which is said to have taken place on 3rd Sharevar, 1359 fasli and the balance of Rs. 40 had been agreed to be paid at the time of registration.

(2.) On the ground that the landlord, second respondent, was refusing to receive the balance and was asking for more money than what was stipulated, the first respondent applied to the Deputy Collector, Kamareddy, on 6th March, 1954, under section 48 of the Act for a direction that the purchase certificate be issued to him at the agreed price. At that stage, the petitioner herein filed an objection petition stating that he was the possessor and occupant of the two survey numbers aforesaid, that he had purchased them on 18th Mehar, 1350 fasli from Lakshmaiah, the father of the second respondent, who was the owner and that he had paid the consideration but he did not obtain a registered document from the said Lakshmaiah. He also stated that the deceased Lakshmaiah had also applied for Varg Mubadila (change of mutation) on 18th Mehar, 1350 Fasli in the Tahsil, but the change did not take place and therefore the property remained in the name of the deceased Lakshmaiah. He further stated that the first respondent executed a kabuliatnama dated 3rd August, 1358 fasli in his name, but had failed to pay the rent, when he was pressed for payment of the rent he had entered into a conspiracy with the son of the deceased Lakshmaiah and filed the present application. He further pleaded that the second respondent was asking him to pay Rs. 200 to complete the transaction entered into by his father. When he refused to pay the same, he in collusion with the first respondent caused the present application to be filed.

(3.) The second respondent filed on 28th May, 1954 in answer to the notice of the Court, a petition to the following effect. According to him, the petitioner is not the possessor of the said two survey numbers and these numbers were in the possession of the first respondent for the last thirty or forty years and he had sold to the first respondent the two survey numbers. He stated that the petitioner herein had entered into a contract for the purchase of the property from his father and that after his father's death, saying that the lands were not do fasla (double crop) went back upon the transaction and asked for the return of the consideration paid by him. He averred that the first respondent was never the qowldar of the petitioner, but he was his own tenant and that the kabuliatnama of 3rd August, 1958 fasli is a false document. The first respondent filed a petition to the effect that the fact that the petitioner had executed a kabuliatnama is absolutely false, and that he held the land for over thirty years on qowl from the second respondent's father and later from the second respondent and prayed for the issue of purchase certificate in his favour under section 38 of the Act.