GUNTUR UDASI MATH Vs. NAMANA VENKATESWARA RAO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) 1. Plaintiff is the appellant in this Second appeal. It is a muth represented by the Mahanth. The suit, out of which the second appeal arises was instituted by the muth for possession of the suit land after evicting the defendants and for mesne profits.

(2.) The case of the plaintiff was that the suit land belongs to the muth. From 1955 onwards there were yearly oral leases given to the defendants and in respect of the lease for 1957-58, there was a default in payment of rent. The muth therefore filed a petition O. P. G. 79/58 for eviction of the tenant on the ground of default and also on the ground that the lease period had expired. The certified copy of the petition is marked as Ex. B. 4. At the same time the much filed a small cause suit 3411/58 on the file of the District Munsif's Court, Guntue for recovery of the amount due under a promissory note representing the arrears of rent and also the rent for the current year, from the same tenant. The plaint in that suit Is marked as Ex. A-1, while the written statement is marked as Ex. A-2. There was a compromise in the small cause suit on 19-8-1958. The compromise memo is marked as Ex. A-4. A decree in terms of the compromise was passed in favour of the Muth. It was a compromise not only relating to the small cause suit but also in the petition for eviction. In pursuance of the said compromise both of them executed a fresh lease on 22-8-1958 marked as Ex. A. 3 and in pursuance of that the earlier O.P. was withdrawn. Ex. A.3 provides that the tenant should be in possession for one year for 1959 and should vacatethe suit land by 31-3-1959.

(3.) When there was a default in respect of this lease as well, and when the defendant did not vacate the land, the muth again filed another petition for eviction on 2-6-1959 in A. T. P. 72/59 on the file of Tahsildar, Guntur. Tenant filed a counter marked as Ex. A-6 in the said petition. After this petition was filed, the tenant appears to have sent the rent by M.Os.on 12-3-59 coupons whereof are marked as Exs. B.8 and B.9 Originally this A.T.P. was dismissed by the Tahsildar, as not maintainable on 14-3-1960 (vide order marked as Ex.B.5). There was an appeal A.T.A. 5/60 to the R.D.O against this order (vide Ex.B6). The appeal was allowed on 5-9-1960 and the petition was remanded to the Tahsildar again by order in Ex. A-7. After remand the Tahsildar appears to have dismissed the petition for default on 5-5-1961. Thereupon the plaintiff herein preferred the appeal T.A. 7/61 (vide Ex. B.7). The further course of these proceedings are not represented by any documents on record,