REDDI RAMAIAH Vs. S LAXMANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The defendants are the appellants. Though they were initially successful at the trial, on reversal by the appellate Court, they knocked at the door of this court in aid of Section 100 C.P.C. raising substantial questions of law.

(2.) The plaint schedule property is situated in an estate notified and taken over by the Government under the Andhra Pradesh (Andhra Area) Estates Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari Act (Act XXVI of 1948), hereinafter called "the Abolition Act". Thereby the appellants acquired statutory right to be in occupation in perpetuity on obtaining a patta thereunder. With a view to denude the appellants of the statutory benefit of permanent occupancy the covetous rapacity of the land holder caught his animation to launch proceedings for ejectment under the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh (Andhra Area) Tenancy Act, 1956,for short, here inafter referred to as the Tenancy Act', and immediately plunged into action. He initially succeeded with an exparte order of ejectment passed against the appellants. The landholder took out execution proceedings and secured possession thereunder. He found it feasible to prop up a lease in favour of the respondent so as to keep off the appellants at bay. The landholder claims to have inducted the respondent into possession in pursuance of the purported lease. The brain behind the lis and beneficiary thereof is the landholder and the respondent is only a name lender and a time server to the land holder. The question at issue is whether the decree of the appellate Court does lay on solid foundation. The ill-founded, suspicion on facts and doubts of law and non-consideration of the material relevant evidence pertainning to the points robbed off the con- clusiveness attached to the finding of fact recorded by the lower appellate Court. Thus this final Court of law, in exercise of its power under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure is called upon to have a close look into the facts with a view to lender substantial Justice, of course, within the limits circumscribed by law.

(3.) The facts are as follows: The appellants are in possession of Ac.1-41 cents of land situated in Satyavaram village in Srikakulam district, as tenants under one Bairagi Charan Das alias Vaikunteshwara Sarma (hereinafter referred to as T. W. 3'). The lands are situated in an inam estate which was notified and taken over en October 10, 1973, under the previsions of the Abolition Act. It is their case that as a consequence of the abolition of the estate and conversion of the same into ryotwari settlement they became entitled te ryotwari patta under section 11 of the Abolition Act. While so, P. W. 3 initiated the proceedings under the Tenancy Act for ejectment of the appellants from the demised lands and laid A. T. P. Nos. 3/74 and 4/74 on the file of the Tenancy Tahsil- dar, Narasarmapeta (hereinafter called the Tahsildar). The appellants have been resisting the ejectment by filing their counters under Exs.A-2 and A-3 denying the allegations made therein. While so, due to the absence of their counsel and of them, an ex-parte order of ejectment was passed on October 10, 1976 Immediately thereafter they filed application on October 12, 1976, to set aside the same, the petitions I. A. Nos. 1/76 and 2/76. They were served on the counsel for P. W. 3 and while they were pending, exparte execution proceedings in E.P. 2/76 and 3/76 were taken out and delivery of possession was obtained on November 21, 1976, behind their back as evidenced by Exs. X-1 and X-2 and the report of the Revenue Inspector, dated November 22, 1976, under Ex. X-3. The Tahsildar enquired into I,As 1/76 and 2/76 (petitions to set aside the ex-parte order) and on May 20, 1977, set aside the same. In pursuance thereof they filed I. As.1/77 and 2/77 for restitution under Section 144 C.P.C. The Tahsildar by his order dated August 12, 1977, as evidenced by Exs B-11 and B-12 passed orders directing restitution and in pursuance thereof the Revenue Inspector effected re-delivery on August 19,1977, as evidenced by Exs B-15 and B-20 in the presence of mediators, D Ws 2 and 3. Thus they are in possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property.