K. CHINNA SRIRAMULU Vs. G. SURESH KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS second appeal is filed by the defendants in O.S. No. 42 of 2004 on the file of the learned VII Senior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad. The respondents filed the suit for the relief of eviction from the suit schedule properties. It was pleaded that the 1st respondent purchased the suit schedule property through sale deed dated 27.03.1997 from one Mr. N. Sambashivudu and that gentleman in turn has purchased the property through sale deed dated 06.07.1982 from Smt. K. Jaya Lakshmi. The original owner is said to be Smt. K. Ramulamma and from her, Jaya Lakshmi is said to have purchased the property on 11.08.1997. It was mentioned that a portion of the suit schedule property comprising of two rooms was let out to the 1st appellant on a monthly rent of Rs. 1,500/ - and inspite of a notice being issued for vacating the premises, he did not comply with the same. Arrears to the tune of Rs. 1,00,000/ - are said to have accumulated.

(2.) THE 1st appellant filed a written statement opposing the suit. He stated that Ramulamma is none other than his wife and one Mr. Sambashivudu brought into existence the various documents, when he was approached in respect of a loan transaction. The relationship of tenant and landlord was totally denied and he pleaded that at no point of time, either the respondents were owners of the premises or that he was the tenant. The trial Court decreed the suit through judgment, dated 06.04.2005. Aggrieved by that, the appellants filed A.S. No. 272 of 2005 in the Court of III Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad. Initially, the lower appellate Court allowed the appeal and set aside the decree. Thereupon, the respondents filed S.A. No. 1477 of 2007 before this Court. The second appeal was allowed on 09.08.2012 and the matter was remanded to the lower appellate Court for fresh consideration and disposal on certain aspects. After remand, the lower appellate Court dismissed A.S. No. 272 of 2005, through judgment, dated 15.07.2013. Hence, this second appeal.

(3.) THE trial Court framed the following issues for its consideration: