LAWS(APH)-2002-6-103

PULLA PRAKASARAO Vs. NIMMANA NAGABHUSHANAM

Decided On June 04, 2002
PULLA PRAKASARAO Appellant
V/S
NIMMANA NAGABHUSHANAM Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Defendants in OS No. 81 of 1981 on the file of the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Kakinada are the appellants.

(2.) Respondent filed the aforesaid OS No. 81 of 1981 against the appellants for declaration of his title to 1 acre 86 cents of land in S.No.178/12 within the boundaries mentioned in the scheduled appended to the plaint, hereinafter called the suit land, and for recovery of possession thereof and profits from the appellants.

(3.) The case, is brief, of the respondents is that the suit land originally belonged to three brothers viz., Chittoori Venkata Raju, Viswanatham and Swamy, who had 1/3rd share each therein. After the death of his two brothers Venkata Raju and Viswanatham, Swamy let out the suit land to Pulla Naraiah, father of the appellants on an yearly rent of 10 bags of paddy payable on Makara Sankranti day every year. After the death of Naraiah, who committed default in payment of rent, since none of his legal heirs exercised their option to continue the lease in respect of the suit land, appellants lost their right to continue in the suit land as tenants and therefore their status is that of trespassers. They cultivated the suit land in such status and delivered 10 bags of paddy to Swamy who received the same towards damages for use and occupation without prejudice to his right and issued receipts. Chittoori Swamy and the heirs of his brothers executed a sale deed dated 13-3-1981 in favour of the respondent in respect of the suit land and got it registered, and so respondent who became the absolute owner of the suit land, got issued a registered notice dated 17-3-1981 to the appellants through his advocate seeking possession of the suit land apart from damages for use and occupation. Appellants without surrendering possession, sent a reply with contentious allegations. Since a babul tree in the suit was cut and removed by the appellants, value of the tree and damages for use and occupation of the suit land also are due from the appellants. Hence the suit.