ALAPATI SIVARAMAKRISHNAYYA Vs. ALAPATTI KASHIVISHWANANDHAM AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an appeal against the - judgment of our learned brother Satyanarayana Rao, which was pronounced by him as a Judge of the Madras High Court. The appeal has liven transferred to tin's Comt under Section 38 of the Andhra Slate Act. By his judgment, the learned Jndge confirmed the decree of the learned Snboidinate Judge of Tenali in favour of the plaintilfs 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 Hie Appellant before us.

(2.) THERE were three plaintilfs in the suit, Plaintiffs 2 and 3 being alleged to be the tenants of the 1st plaintilf in respect of tho land which is the subject -mat tea' of the dispute between the parties. The 1st Plaintiff claim do have purchased the land from the 1st Defendant under a sale -deed, dated 13th July, 1939, in pursuance of an agreement, dated .10th of February that year. The sale -ul i -f] and the agreement have be; u marked in the suit as Exhibits A -1 and A -2 respectively. 'The 1st Plaintiff alleged in the plaint that ho was put in possession of the land and that till 1946, it "was being cultivated with the help o! the cattle and farm -servants belonging to (lie joint family of himself and his elder brother". it was further stated therein (hat "as 1st Plaintiff's biother was of late mostly staying, at Tenali, the Plaintiff was obliged to lease out tho suit laud to Plaintiffs 2 and 3 for 5 years" under a registered lease deed, dated 10th May, 1946 registered on 9th August, 1946 and marked as Exhibit A -JO. The Plaintiffs 2 and 3 cultivated the suit land, die 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 & 3 in die suit land, obstructed them in their field operations. Then there was a petition filed by the Plaintiffs under Section 144 of the Code of Criminal Procedure followed by a petition under section .145 of the same Code. The Deputy Magistrate, Tenali, decided the question of possession in favour of tho 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 -0 -0 were deposited with the Magistrate. The suit was, therefore filed lor silting aside the order of the Deputy Magistrate, dated" 31st May, 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 plaintill's wile. The 1st Defendant was the only contesting Defendant and his ease is best set out in his own words as stated in his written statement;

(3.) LIE further alleged that he did not receive the sum of Rs. 6,200 recited to have been paid under the contract or the other amount recited as having been further paid under the sale -deed. He claimed to have himself continued in possession and enjoyment of the property despite Exhibit A -1. lie further averred that the cist on the land was being paid with his own money in the name of the 1st Plaintiff. He also stated that the 1st plaintff and his elder brother who is their joint family manager, had passed a letter, dated 15th July, .1.939, in his favour staling the circumstances under which the sale -deed in favour of the Plaintiff came to be executed and acknowledging his (the 1st Defendant's) title to and possession of the property. Ho asserted that the Defendants 2 to 5 are not necessary parties to the suit, they not being in possession of the property at any time.