ALLA NAGESWARA RAO Vs. KALIPINDI APPALA NARASAMMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Defendants 2 to 5 and 18 to 20 in the court below filed this appeal against the judgment and decree of the Principal SeniorCivil Judge, Eluru dt.25-8-1999 in OS No.123/95, whereunder the suit filed by the plaintiffs was decreed in favour of the 1st plaintiff declaring that she is a permanent tenant of the plaint schedule land; directing the defendants 3 to 5 and 18 to 20 to deliver possession of the same and to pay past and future mesne profits.

(2.) Pleadings in nut-shell are as under: One Pratapa Venkata Nageswara Viswanatha Sastry was the original owner of the suit schedule property. He executed a permanent lease deed dt. 7-2-1951, Ex.A-8, in favour of Mylavarapu Rama Krishna Rao for a maktha of 30 bags of paddy per year payable undertaking to pay the land revenue to the Government. The original owner-lessor Pratapa Venkata Nageswara Viswanatha Sastry sold his rights over the suit schedule property including right to collect maktha of 30 bags of paddy from the lessees in favour of Mulakala Brahmaramba and Mulakala Umamaheswarammaundera registered sale deed dt. 24-12-1956, Ex.A-9, for a valuable consideration of Rs.2000/-. The lessee Mylavarapu Ramakrsihna Rao transferred his permanent leasehold rights and interest over the plaint schedule property in favour of Tata Chiranjeevi Rao, Talam Venkateswara Rao, Seeram Krishna Murthy and Dalapatiraju Venkatraj under a registered transfer deed dt. 26-3-1959, Ex.A-10. Out of the said four persons, Dalapatiraju Venkata Raju transferred his 1/4th permanent leasehold rights and interest in favour of Madeka Appa Rao under a registered transfer deed dated 6-9-1962, Ex.A-11, and the other three persons transferred their permanent leasehold rights and interest in respect of Ac.11-45 cents in favour of Chunduri Rama Suryanarayana Sastry and Ac. 11 -00 in favour of D. Satyanarayana under two registered transfer deeds dt. 29-12-1964, Exs.A-12 and A-13 respectively. Later D.Satyanarayana again transferred his leasehold rights and interest in respect of Ac.11-00 cents in favour of Edara Subbamma under a registered transfer deed dt. 1-7-1967, Ex. A-14, who in turn transferred her leasehold rights and interest in respect of Ac.5-50 cents in favour of Chunduri Suryanarayana Sastry and the remaining Ac.5-50 cents in favour of Parcha Gnaneswara Rao under two registered Xvansfev deeds dt. 2-7-1968 and 24-6-70, Exs.A-15 and A-16 respectively. The said Patcha Gnaneswara Rao in turn transferred his leasehold rights and interest in respect of Ac.5-50 cents in favour of Pacha Subba Rao and Patcha Venkatraju under a registered transfer deed dt. 23-6-1973, Ex.A-17. The legal representatives of Chunduri Rama Suryanarayana Sastry i.e.; 6 to 13 transferred their permanent leasehold rights and interest in respect of Ac. 17-00 out of total extent of Ac.22-451/2 cents in favour of plaintiffs 1 and 2 under a registered transfer deed dt. 23-6-1993, Ex.A-1, for a valuable consideration of RS.30,000/- and delivered possession to them. Defendants 14 and 15 being represented by their General Power of Attorney Agent Pacha Venkata Seetharama Prasad transferred their permanent leasehold rights in respect of the remaining extent of Ac.5-50 cents in favour of the plaintiffs for a valuable consideration of Rs.10,000/- under a registered transfer deed dt. 23-6-1993, Ex.A-2, and delivered possession of the same to the plaintiffs. Thus, the plaintiffs have become the transferees of the leasehold rights of the entire plaint schedule property under the above two documents. The first defendant who is the general power of attorney holder of all the legal heirs of original claimants created two separate sale agreements, Exs.A-59 and Ex.A-60, in respect of half of the plaint schedule property each in favour of defendants 16 and 17 on 24-4-1993, for Rs.2,86,300/- each reciting possession of the property was delivered. Defendants 16 and 17 stated to have given up their agreements, received back their amounts and delivered back possession to the 1st defendant. Thereafter, the first defendant as a general power of attorney holder executed registered sale deeds dt. 24-11 -1993 in favour of defendants 2 to 5 in respect of plaint schedule property reciting that possession was delivered. While so, defendants 2 to 5 have forced to dispossess the plaintiffs from the suit schedule property on 25-1-1994, stating that possession of which was acquired under various transfer deeds and sale deeds. In view of the same, the above suit came to be filed for declaration of theirpermanent leasehold right and interest over the plaint schedule property as per the terms and conditions of the original registered permanent lease deed dt. 7-2-1951, and for consequential possession of the plaint schedule property after evicting defendants 2 to 5 therefrom and seeking a decree for Rs.1,68,750/- towards mesne profits or damages for use and occupation with interest at 12% per annum, and for future mesne profits.

(3.) On the death of the second defendant, defendants 18 to 20 were brought on record as his legal representatives and plaint was accordingly amended seeking reliefs against them also as LRs of D-2.