AMANAMANCHI VENKATESHWARLU Vs. BRUDANAM VENKATA RAO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Revision petitioner filed O.S. No.5 of 1972 on the file of the Court of Subordinate Judge, Tanuku for declaration of his title to Ac.0-50 of land in Survey No.203/1 of Rapaka Village within the boundaries mentioned in the A schedule appended to the plaint and for other reliefs. By the decree and judgment dated 8-8-1975 the learned Subordinate Judge while declaring the title of the revision petitioner to the plaint A schedule property of Ac.0-50 ordered delivery of possession of the property from the defendants in the suit and dismissed the suit relating to the relief of recovery of possession of property in respect of plaint B and C schedules. That decree was modified in A.S.No.39 of 1977 filed by the defendants in the suit holding that the revision petitioner's title to the plaint A schedule is subject to the life estate of the fifth defendant in the suit and that he is entitled to recovery of possession of the said property only after the death of the fifth defendant, and dismissed the cross-objections preferred by the revision petitioner.

(2.) After the death of the fifth defendant, revision petitioner filed E.P. No.90 of 1994 for recovery of possession of the property wherein respondent filed E.A. No.60 of 1995 contending that inasmuch as he is in possession of the plaint A schedule property as a tenant of the deceased fifth defendant since 1975 on an agreed rent of 12 bags of paddy payable by 31st December each year, he cannot be evicted and only symbolic delivery can be given to the revision petitioner. By the order dated 24-8-2000, the learned Subordinate Judge allowed that petition and held that the revision petitioner is entitled only to symbolic delivery and the rents from the date of death of Bala Tripura Sundaramma i.e., the fifth defendant. Appeal preferred by the revision petitioner against the said order dated 24-8-2000 in E.A. No.60 of 1995 was dismissed on 18-10-2001.

(3.) Subsequently, revision petitioner filed E.P. No.45 of 2003 for recovery of rents at the rate of 12 bags of paddy due and payable from 31-12-1994 i.e. subsequent to the death of the fifth defendant to 31-12-2000, by attaching the properties of the respondent. Respondent filed a counter contending that the E.P. is not maintainable. Accepting the contention of the respondent, the executing Court dismissed the E.P. by the order under revision. Hence this revision.