ALLURI VENKATA NARASIMHARAJU Vs. PENTAKOTI VENKATRAMAYYA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Two questions are argued before me in this Second Appeal by Mr. Kodandaramayya, the learned Counsel for the appellant. It was firstly urged that the lower Courts were wrong in deciding that the oral lease is proved merely because the plaintiff has proved to have raised the sugarcane crop. Secondly, it is contended that as the alleged oral lease of two years is in violation of section 10 of the Andhra Tenancy Act (hereinafter called the Act, the contract of lease is void and the plaintiff cannot base his suit on such a contract.

(2.) The facts which give rise to these contentions may briefly be stated. The respondent-plaintiff instituted a suit for the issue of a permanent injunction restrain ing the defendant from interfering with the sugarcane crop and asked for a decree for Rs. 1,340, being the value of the jaggery unauthorisedly removed by the defendant. It was alleged by the plaintiff that the defendant is the landlord who has orally leased out the suit property to the plaintiff for two years. The plaintiff raised sugarcane crop on it but the defendant interfered with his possession and removed the jaggery which he had prepared. He therefore asked for the abovesaid reliefs.

(3.) The principal defence raised by the defendant-appellant was that, there was no oral lease for two years in favour of the plaintiff, that the crop has been raised by the defendant and not by the plaintiff and that he has not removed any jaggery. The trial Court, after recording the evidence adduced by the parties, decreed the plaintiff's suit. It was found that the plaintiff is the lessee on oral lease for two years and that it is he who has raised the crop. It was also found that the defendant had removed the jaggery prepared by. the plaintiff. Consequently the suit was decreed. The matter then was taken in appeal by the defendant. The appellate Court agreed with the conclusion of the trial Gourt and the appeal of the defendant therefore was dismissed. It is this concurrent view of the Court below that is now assailed in this second appeal.