VELIVELA LAKSHMI BAHASKERAMMA Vs. ALLEM VENKATESWAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Since one and the same issue between the same parties arises for adjudication in both these matters, they are heard together and are being disposed of through a common Judgment.

(2.) Plaintiffs in O.S.No.91 of 1990 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Narsapur filed this appeal, aggrieved by the Judgment, dated 22.10.1998, dismissing the suit in so far as it relates to the relief of recovery of possession of the property and cancellation of lease deeds, Exs.B1 and 02, though it is declared that they got title to the plaint 'A' schedule property.

(3.) The facts of the case, in brief, are as under: The father of the plaintiffs viz. late Tholeti Sambha Raju was a political sufferer and hence was granted patta, Ex.A1, in respect of the plaint 'A schedule property by the Tahasildar, Narsapur through the proceedings in Roc.No.C2-8/LD/72 of K.P.Palem on 20.11.1962. The fourth respondent, who is none other than the wife's brother of late Sambha Raju, played fraud on him and obtained a deed of lease, dated 14.11.1962, Ex.132, in respect of the said property for 99 years, on an annual rent of Rs.75/-. As the said Sambha Raju refused to register the lease deed, the fourth respondent applied for its compulsory registration and accordingly the same was registered compulsorily. Subsequently, the fourth respondent sub-leased the property to respondents 1 to 3, under Ex.Bl, for the remaining period of original lease i.e. 84 years from 26.08.1978 to 13.11.2061. Later, on the death of Sambha Raju in 1976, the appellants who are his daughters, succeeded to the said property. Despite the persistent demands made by the appellants, respondents 1 to 3 failed to pay the rents, and accordingly the lease was determined. Therefore, the appellants got issued a legal notice, dated 27.03.1989, demanding the respondents to vacate the property. As the respondents failed to do so, the appellants filed the suit seeking a declaration and to cancel the lease in favour of the fourth respondent and the sub-lease in favour of respondents I to 3.