MADDULA GANGAMMA Vs. DODDAKA APPA RAO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present Second Appeal arises against the Judgment and Decree in A.S.No.39 of 2015 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Mangalagiri, dated 22.02.2019 confirming the Judgment and decree in O.S.No.7 of 2014 on the file of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Mangalagiri, dated 10.08.2015.

(2.) The appellant herein is the appellant before the lower appellate Court and the defendant in the suit. The respondent herein is the respondent before the lower appellate court and the plaintiff in the suit. The action was initiated by the plaintiff in O.S.No.7 of 2014 on the file of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Mangalagiri seeking eviction of the defendant from the plaint schedule property to hand over the possession of the same to the plaintiff and recovery of rent of Rs.6,000/- claiming that the defendant was the absolute owner of the plaint schedule property under a registered sale deed, dated 02.07.2002, then constructed a tin roof shed in the said property, later sold the said property to one Talla Malleswararao under a registered sale deed, dated 06.10.2008 by delivering possession of the same, again the defendant purchased the same from the said Talla Malleswararao under a registered sale deed, dated 17.08.2010 and ever since she was in possession and enjoyment of the same by running a hotel for her livelihood. It is averred further that in order to meet her family necessities, the defendant sold the plaint schedule property to the plaintiff for a valid consideration under a registered sale deed, dated 14.02.2011 by delivering possession of the said property to the plaintiff along with the original link documents of the said property, at her request the plaintiff allowed her/the defendant to reside in the plaint schedule property as a tenant on a monthly rent of Rs.500/- under an oral lease, accordingly the defendant paid rent regularly to the plaintiff up to the month of December, 2012 and became defaulter from the month of January, 2013. Finally in the first week of April, 2013, the plaintiff demanded the defendant either to pay arrears of rent or to vacate the plaint schedule property by the end of April 2013 failing which the legal consequences would follow. The defendant in retaliation initiated an action in O.S.62 of 2013 on the file of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Mangalagiri against the plaintiff herein seeking permanent injunction in respect of the very same plaint schedule property of the suit. Then the plaintiff herein issued a legal notice, dated 24.06.2013 to the defendant demanding her to vacate the plaint schedule property before the end of July, 2013 by handing over the possession of the same and pay the arrears of rent.

(3.) The defendant herein resisted the claim of the plaintiff by filing the written statement specifically denying the averments of the plaint. It is averred by the defendant that she believed the words of the plaintiff and agreed to mortgage the plaint schedule property to the plaintiff by borrowing an amount of Rs.1,50,000/- with interest @ 24% per annum from him, taking advantage of her illiteracy and innocence, the plaintiff gave an amount of Rs.1,50,000/- to the defendant and asked her to come to sub-registrar's office, Tadikonda for the purpose of mortgage of the Plaint schedule property, believing the words of the plaintiff, the defendant went to Sub-Registrar's office, Tadikonda on 14.02.2011 and the plaintiff has obtained her thumb impression on several non-judicial papers and other papers. Thereafter, when the defendant offered to pay back the debt amount of Rs.1,50,000/- and cancel the mortgage, the plaintiff started harassing the defendant by evading the same and insisted to vacate the plaint schedule property on the ground that he purchased the same from the defendant. Having realized the grabbing attempt of the plaintiff over the defendant's property, the defendant got issued a registered legal notice, dated 29.04.2013 to the plaintiff demanding not to interfere with her peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property and return of the original title deed along with other non-judicial stamp papers, dated 14.02.2011 by receiving an amount of Rs.1,50,000/-. It is the contention of the defendant that she has not executed any sale deed to the plaintiff with respect to the plaint schedule property and she is not in the relationship of the tenant and landlord with the defendant respectively.