VANGALA RAMULU Vs. PEDALA SEETHARAM NAIDU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners herein filed A.T.C. No. 2/1993 on the file of the Principal District Munsif:Cum:Special Officer for Tenancy Cases, Parvathipuram, under Section 10 of the A.P. (Andhra Area) Tenancy Act, 1956 (for short 'the Act') to declare them as the cultivating tenants in respect of the petition schedule property and to grant permanent injunction restraining the respondents herein from interfering with their peaceful possession and enjoyment of the petition schedule property.

(2.) It is the case of the petitioners that since time immemorial of their father, they have been cultivating the land in question of the 1st respondent - landlord and the land was given in tenancy to the father of the petitioners by the forefathers of the 1st respondent. During the lifetime of the petitioners' father, he continued to cultivate the land and after his death the petitioners are cultivating the same. They have evidence to show that they are the cultivating tenants. But recently with an ill - motive to get the petitioners evicted from the petition schedule property, the 1st respondent colluded with the other respondents and without issuing any notice to exercise the option for purchase of the said land under the Tenancy Act, the 1st respondent executed a collusive Sale Deed dated 27-02-1993 and under the guise of the same, they are making every effort to evict the petitioners forcibly.

(3.) A counter has been filed stating that the petition is not maintainable and all the parties belonging to the same village and the petitioners are not at all the tenants of the 1st respondent and they never cultivated the petition schedule property. There is no evidence to show that the petitioners are the cultivating tenants. The 1st respondent and his sons executed a registered Sale Deed dated 27-02-1993 in favour of respondents 2 and 3 for a valid consideration of Rs. 72,100/- and the petitioners very well know about the said sale of the land and there was no truth in any of the contentions that the petitioners were dispossessed after the execution of the sale deed.