MUDUNURI SURYANARAYANARAJU Vs. KORUKONDA APPARAO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition is filed being aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 4th October 1990 passed by the Subordinate Judge, Bhimavaram on S.C. Suit No.81 of 1988 on his file. The petitioner claims to be the owner and landlord of the premises in question. According to the petitioner he purchased the same under a registered sale deed dated 10-2-1984 from one Jupudi Ammaji alias Hymasundari (filed as Ex.A-1). According to the petitioner, his vendor Hymasundari got the property from her mother-in-law Jupudi Sesharatnam under a settlement deed dated 31-7-1957, filed in the suit as Ex.A-2 and on the basis of the sale deed Ex.A-1 he filed the present suit for recovery of rent of Rs.1260/-, at the rate of Rs.35/- per month, for 36 months from 10-7-85 to 10-7-88, from the respondent.

(2.) The respondent-defendant filed a written statement contending that he was a tenant of the suit premises (shop) for the last 30 to 40 years under one Jupudi Kesavarao and he had been paying rents to him. There was a previous litigation between Jupudi Ammaji alias Hymasundari and himself in R.C.C. 7 of 1980 and the said proceedings ended in his favour. The plaintiff also filed I.A.33/86 in O.S.No.9/80 to implead him as a party and it was dismissed. The tenant further contended that because of the judgment in those proceedings, the petitioner cannot file the present suit and the present suit is barred by the principle of res judicata. He further contended that the real owner and landlord of the suit premises is Jupudi Kesavarao or his wife in whose favour there was a settlement-deed in respect of the suit property and as such, the plaintiff is not the landlord; nor he has attorned the tenancy in his favour. He further submitted that the plaintiff would be entitled to the arrears of rent provided he gets a decree from the competent Court as to his title. Therefore the suit was liable to be dismissed.

(3.) On the pleadings raised by both the parties, the Court below framed the only point -- whether the plaintiff is entitled for the suit amount. On consideration of the material on record and also on the principle that the plaintiff was not entitled to the relief as prayed for since the tenant has not attorned the tenancy in his favour, dismissed the suit. Being aggrieved by this judgment and decree, the original plaintiff has filed the present revision petition.