PETA RADHA REDDY Vs. C.V. MANOHARAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The 1st respondent herein filed O.S.No.101 of 2011 in the Court of III Additional District Judge, Tirupati against the appellants and respondents 2 to 5 herein, for the relief of perpetual injunction in respect of the suit schedule property, a hotel at Srikalahasti, Chittoor District. He pleaded that the land on which the hotel was constructed was owned by the appellants and respondents 2 and 3, and his wife by name Saroja, and all of them gave the property on lease to M/s. Swarna Restaurant Private Limited, 4th respondent herein, under a document dated 17-04-2002. The 1st respondent further pleaded that the hotel was given on lease to him under a document dated 01-01-2005 upto 31-12-2031 on a rent of Rs.1,00,000/- per month. Alleging that the appellants and respondents 2, 4 and 5 were interfering with his possession and enjoyment, he filed the suit. He has also filed I.A.No.381 of 2011 under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC. The Andhra Pradesh State Financial Corporation, Tirupati, 5th respondent herein, which is said to have advanced finances, was impleaded as defendant No.6 in the suit.

(2.) The appellants filed a counter in the I.A. They pleaded that the Managing Director of the 4th respondent-company is one Smt Anuradha and the so-called lease obtained by the 1st respondent is untenable in law. It was stated that basically the document is inadmissible since it was not registered, though it is said to have been executed for a period of about 25 years. Another plea raised by the appellants was that it was typed on a stamp paper said to have purchased from a person who died long back. The authority of the person, who is said to have executed the document, was also questioned. The trial Court allowed the I.A through its order, dated 02-01-2013. The same is challenged in this appeal.

(3.) Sri D. Srinivas, learned counsel for the appellants submits that the 1st respondent was not consistent in his stand and resorted to the fabrication of several documents. He submits that taking advantage of the fact that his wife was one of the signatories to the lease deed executed in favour of the 4th respondent, in the year 2002, he manipulated the entire issue and sought to occupy the property. He further submits that the trial Court has placed a totally distorted interpretation on the affidavit filed by Smt Anuradha, the Managing Director of the 4th respondent and it was not clear as to who was the Managing Director of the 4th respondent either at the time, when the so-called lease deed was executed or when the order was passed. He submits that the document relied upon by the 1st respondent is not only inadmissible, but is also fabricated, on the face of it.