YENDLURI PEDA RAMACHANDRAYYA Vs. MARUBOYINA VENKATESWARULU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Defendants 3 and 4 in O S. 43/66 Sub-Court, Bapatla are the appellants. The suit was filed by the respondent herein for recovery of a sum of Rs. 6666-65 from defendants 3 and 4. His case was that the plaintiff, second defendant's father and the 1st defendant took on lease from defendants 3 and 4 an extent of about 87 acres of day land in Adavi village for the purpose of raising casuarina tope at their expense. It was agreed that the lessees should raise the tope at their expense and after the casuarina trees are cut and sold, the lessees and lessors should divide the proceeds in the ratio of 1 : 2. Ultimately the tope was sold for a sum of Rs. 60,000/- With the result that the lessees became entitled to a suit of Rs. 20,000/-. The plaintiff therefore filed a suft for recovery of his 1/3 share out of the lessee's share Rs. 6666-65.

(2.) The defendants raised several contentions including the denial of the lease, The learned Subordinate Judge negatived the contentions and held that the lease of the suit tope was true and that the plaintiff defendant No. 1 and the father of defendant No 2 raised the casuarina tope as contended by the plaintiff He decreed the plaintiff's suit with costs. On appeal the learned District Judge affirmed the judgment and decree.

(3.) Apart from the truth of the lease and other contentions, a further contention was raised by defendants 3 and 4 that even if the lease and the raising of the casuarina tope are true, the lease was not valid as it was not in writting and registered as required by section 107 of the TRANSFER OF PROPERTY ACT, 1882 and was therefore no enforceable. This contention was also negatived by the lower appellate court and the appeal was dismissed with costs. Defendants 3 and 4 have preferred this second appeal as against the judgment and decree of the learned District Judge.