KOLA NARSIMHULU Vs. VENUGOPALASWAMYVARU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against the judgment and decreed dated 08.11.1996 passed in O.S.No.59 of 1996 by the District Judge, Vizianagaram. The appellant is the defendant in the suit O.S.No.59 of 1996 filed by the respondent/plaintiff - Devasthanam for recovery of possession of the suit schedule mentioned 13 acres of wet land from the defendant and to direct the defendant to handover vacant possession of the same with standing crops and direct the defendant to render true and correct account of the mesne profits derived from the suit lands from 30.08.1975 till delivery to the plaintiff with interest at 18% per annum and for costs of the suit. The suit was decreed with costs and future profits were directed to be determined on filing a separate application.

(2.) The parties herein are referred to as they were arrayed in the suit. It is the case of plaintiff-Devasthanam that the suit schedule land admeasuring 13 acres wetland covered by Patta No.33, Sy.No.6 situated a Kothavalasa Village and Mandal, Vizianagaram District, belongs to the plaintiff deity and the said suit lands were proposed to be auctioned by way of public auction for a period of six years. Apart from other terms and conditions in the conditions of sale dated 13.05.1975, it was specifically stated and explained to the defendant and others present that the proposed auction has to be approved and confirmed by the higher authorities of the Endowments Department. In the actual auction proceedings held on 13.05.1975 the defendant became the highest bidder for Rs.1,000/- rent per year and it was brought to the notice of the defendant that the auction has got to be approved by the higher authorities of the Endowments Department and thereafter he is bound to enter into a regular registered lease deed with respect to the suit lands and obtain possession thereof from the Hereditary Trustee. But without waiting for the approval or confirmation of the auction, the defendant prevailed upon the then Hereditary Trustee and took undue advantage of his dire need of money, temped him with same and obtained from him a cowl on 30.08.1975, locally called as KADAPA in favour of the plaintiff-deity for six years in respect of the suit schedule lands. It is stated that six years period is already over by 1981-82. It is stated that when the then Hereditary Trustee (Nunna Appalacharyulu) submitted the auction proceedings for approval and confirmation of the Commissioner of Endowments, Hyderabad, through the Assistant Commissioner; the Commissioner did not confirm the same on the ground that the highest bid of Rs.1,000/- per year as rent for the suit wet lands measuring Ac13.00 cents is not fair and reasonable when compared to the prevailing rates and directed the Hereditary Trustee to adjust the bid amount of the defendant towards the damages for use and occupation and lease out the same again through public auction as early as possible. The Hereditary Trustee issued a registered notice dated 24.03.1976 to the defendant intimating him of the two proceedings dated 26.02.1976 and 14.03.1976 issued by the Commissioner of Endowments, Hyderabad and the Assistant Commissioner, Anakapalli, respectively, stating that the auction held on 13.05.1975 stood cancelled and demanded the defendant for payment of balance of the damages for use and occupation of the suit lands for the year 1975-76 and the defendant acknowledged receipt of the same on 26.03.1976. The Hereditary Trustee issued another notice dated 21.12.1981 calling upon the defendant to vacate the suit lands by 31.03.1982 and also pay damages for use and occupation of the same but the defendant did not vacate the same. It is further stated that the Hereditary Trustee played mischief with the lands of the plaintiff-deity, as such; he was removed for his illegal act of leasing out the suit schedule lands without confirmation of the public auction by the Endowments Department. Therefore, the defendant is in unauthorized occupation of the suit lands in collusion with the then Hereditary Trustee by resorting to breach of trust, fraud, misrepresentation etc. and the rent of Rs.1,000/- per annum is very negligible when compared to the rates for similar lands in the locality. Therefore, the defendant has no right to occupy the suit lands and the plaintiff is entitled for recovery of possession. Accordingly, after giving notice, the suit has been filed for recovery of vacant possession of the suit schedule lands and to render a true and correct account of the mesne profits derived from the suit lands from 30.08.1975 till the delivery of possession along with 18% interest per annum.

(3.) A written statement has been filed by the defendant stating that the defendant was working as farm servant of the Hereditary Trustee (Nunna Appalacharyulu) about 35 or 40 years back when the Hereditary Trustee delivered two acres of wet land to him for cultivation and enjoyment towards the salary payable to him. Later his brother worked as a farm servant under the Hereditary Trustee and his brother was delivered possession of the same farm. Thus the said land was in possession of the defendant and his brother for 15 years prior to 1975. Prior to 1975, the 13 acres of suit land belonging to the Hereditary Trustee was leased out to the father of the defendant and prior to him to the grandfather of the defendant. Thus, the said 13 acres of the suit land was in possession and enjoyment of the defendant, his father and grandfather for more than sixty years and therefore, they have got every right as absolute owners to enjoy the suit land, which was leased out in his favour. It is stated that, thereafter in 1975, the Hereditary Trustee called the defendant and stated that he would lease out the suit lands to 13 persons including the defendant but wanted the defendant to collect a sum of Rs.18,000/- from all the 13 persons and pay the same to him so that he would arrange the lease of the plaint schedule lands on yearly basis. Accordingly, all the 13 persons paid a sum of Rs.18,000/- and the said Appalacharyulu leased out the suit lands to all the 13 persons on yearly rent of Rs.1,000/-. The said lease amount was enhanced to Rs.1,100/- per year thereafter to Rs.1,200/- per year and the defendant had been collecting the amounts from the other 12 persons and paying the same to the said Appalacharyulu but in the name of the defendant alone. It is stated that the defendant is not an educated person but learnt only to sign in Telugu and at the same he cannot even write and read in Telugu, taking advantage of this fact the said Appalacharyulu obtained his signatures on many documents. Therefore, the allegation made in the plaint that the suit lands were leased out by way of public auction and the same was not confirmed, is incorrect. It is stated that 13 persons are in occupation of the suit lands. It is further stated that the defendant is not liable to pay any damages for use and occupation of the said lands and the plaintiff is also not entitled to any mesne profits. As the persons in possession of the plaint schedule lands are small farmers, they are entitled to purchase the said lands as per the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh (Andhra Area) Tenancy Act, 1956 (for short 'the Tenancy Act') and they are ready to purchase the same. It is stated that the said lands are agricultural lands and the persons in occupation of the said lands are lessees and the schedule land is covered by the Tenancy Act, therefore, this suit is not maintainable and if the plaintiff is so advised the petition for eviction is to be filed before the proper authority as contemplated under the Tenancy Act and the Civil Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the suit and accordingly, prayed for dismissal of the suit.