SIVARAMAKRISHNAYYA Vs. KASIVISWANATHAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an appeal against the judgment of our learned brother Satyanarayana Rao, J., which was pronounced by him as a Judge of the Madras High Court. The appeal has been transferred to this Court under Section 38 of the Andhra State Act. By his judgment, the learned Judge confirmed the decree of the learned Subordinate Judge of Tenali in favour of the plaintiffs in O. S. No. 42 of 1947 on the file of the latter. The 1st defendant in that suit was the appellant before the learned Judge and he is also the appellant before us. There were three plaintiffs in the suit, plaintiffs 2 and 3 being alleged to be the tenants of the 1st plaintiff in respect of the land which is the subject- matter of the dispute between the parties. The 1st plaintiff claimed to have purchased the land from the 1st defendant under a sale deed dated 13-7-1939 in pursuance of an agreement dated 10th of February that year. The sale deed and the agreement have been marked in the suit as Exs. A-1 and A-2 respectively. The 1st plaintiff alleged in the plaint that he was put in possession of the land and that till 1946, it "was being cultivated with the help of the cattle and farm-servants belonging to the joint family of himself and his elder brother." It was further stated therein that "as 1st plaintiff's brother was of late mostly staying at Tenali, the plaintiff was obliged to lease out the suit land to plaintiffs 2 and 3 for 5 years" under a registered lease deed dated 10-5-1946 registered on 9-8-1946 and marked as Ex. A-10. The plaintiffs 2 and 3 cultivated the suit land, the plaint proceeded to say, that year; but as there were disputes between the 1st plaintiff and his wife and as the 1st defendant who was related to her along with other relations of hers wanted "to extract by force" something more than the sum of Rs. 15,000/- which the 1st plaintiff had settled to pay her by way of maintenance, the defendants invaded the peaceful possession of the plaintiffs, and with a view to carry away the .crops raised by the plaintiffs 2 and 3 in the suit land, obstructed them in their field operations. Then there was a petition filed by the plaintiffs under Section 144 of the Criminal Procedure Code followed by a petition under Section 145 of the same Code. The Deputy Magistrate, Tenali decided the question of possession in favour of the 1st defendant. The crop on the land, pending those proceedings, was auctioned under orders of the Deputy Magistrate and the sale proceeds amounting to Rs. 1,310/- were deposited with the Magistrate. The suit was, therefore, filed for setting aside the order of the Deputy Magistrate dated 31-5-1947 and for recovery of possession of the land as well as the sum of Rs, 1,310/- the profits of the year 1946 so deposited. The defendants 2 to 5 are said to be close relations of the 1st plaintiff's wife. The 1st defendant was the only contesting defendant and his case is best set out in his Qwn words as stated in his written statement: