SRINIVASA RAJAKAMAL Vs. NEELAMSETTI KATAJI RAO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal by the defendant in OS No.265 of 1982 on the file of the Court of the I Additional Subordinate Judge, Visakhapatnam. During the pendency of the appeal the sole appellant- defendant died. So, his legal representatives were brought on record as appellants 2 to 4. For the sake of convenience I would hereinafter refer to the parties as they are arrayed in the trial Court.

(2.) The suit is for recovery of possession of the property specified in the plaint B schedule, hereinafter called the suit property, which is a part of the property specified in plaint A schedule, and for recovery of rent and other reliefs. The case, in brief, of the plaintiffs, is that Narayana Rao was the owner of the plaint A schedule property of which the suit property is a part. Defendant took the suit property on lease from Narayana Rao and is continuing in possession thereof even after the expiry of period of lease as tenant holding over and had fallen in arrears of rent. Narayana Rao filed OS No.974 of 1973 against the defendant for recovery of rent and OS No.390 of 1974 seeking an injunction restraining the defendant from interfering with his possession over the rest of the property covered by A schedule except the suit property. Defendant filed OS No. 143 of 1977 seeking an injunction restraining Narayana Rao from interfering with his possession over the suit property. All the three suits were decreed after trial. During the pendency of the appeals against those decrees, Narayana Rao sold the plaint A schedule property to plaintiffs. Hence they got themselves impleaded as parties to the appeals against the decrees in OS No.974 of 1977, OS No.390 of 1974 and OS No. 143 of 1977. After issuing a notice to quit, plaintiffs filed the suit seeking eviction of the defendant, recovery of arrears of rent and damages. Defendant filed his written statement alleging that since Narayana Rao let out the suit property to him for 15 years, the suit is premature. Plaintiffs have no right to file the suit against him because the sale deed in their favour is only nominal. On the pleadings, trial Court framed six issues for trial. On behalf of plaintiffs, 1st plaintiff was examined as PW1 and Exs.A1 to A6 were marked. Defendant examined himself as DW1 and marked Exs.B1 to B16. The trial Court decreed the suit in favour of plaintiff for recovery of possession of the suit property and for recovery of Rs. 2,520/- towards arrears of rent with interest at 6% per annum from the defendant and dismissed the rest of the claim made bv the plaintiffe Aggrieved by the decree for possession and rent passed against him, the defendant preferred this appeal.

(3.) Since plaintiffs did not prefer cross- objections in respect of the reliefs not granted to them, the only point for consideration is whether the plaintiffs are entitled to seek recovery of possession of the suit property from the defendant?