VOOCHA PITCHAYYA Vs. GADE VENKATESWARA RAO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant questions the judgment of the learned single Judge in A. S.No.2849 of 1982 confirming the judgment of the learned Subordinate Judge, Tenali inO. S.No. 15 of 1980 decreeing the suit laid by the responden there in forpossessionof the suit schedule land and for damages, past and future, and for costs.

(2.) The suit is laid by the respondent on the basis that his fattier purchased the suit land under a registered sale deed dated 28-1-1952 (Ex. A-1) and that his father was in possession and enjoyment of the same as an absolute owner till his death which occurred on 22-4-1977 and that after his father's death in 1977, he became the absolute owner of the suit land. There was some litigation between the vendor of the respondent's father and certain members of the vendor's family. That was finally settled under acompromise decree dated 23-3-1979 and the rights of the responden there in the suit land were accepted by all concerned. The respondent's case is that the appellant was inducted as a tenant of the suit land in the year 1954 by his father and that he had been in possession of the same on the basis of year to year tenancy. The appellant set up a title of his own in the suit land claiming to have purchased and to have been put in possession of the same under Ex.B-1 agreement of sale dated 18-6-1975 executed bytwo first cousins of the vendor of the respondent's father and that he stopped paying the rent to the respondent's father, who, thereupon issued a notice dated 6-10-1975 calling up on him to pay arrears of rent up to that date and also to vacate the suit land. The appellant sent his reply on 28-10-1975 through his advocate disclaiming the title and rights of the respondent's father to the suit land and claiming ownership in himself on the basis of Ex.B-1 agreement of sale. Thus the case of the respondent is that the appellant lost the right to continue as tenant and that he continued in unlawful possession as a trespasser claiming title in himself and therefore was liable to be evicted and to pay damages for unlawful possession.

(3.) The appellant resisted the suit contending that the plaintiff and his father were not having any title to the suit land, that they were not in possession of the same, and that it was not true that he was inducted as a tenant of the suit land in the year 1954. He also denied thathe was in possession for the past 15 years on the basis of tenancy. He further contended that he had been in possession of the suit property under ExB-1 agreement of sale as an absolute owner and that he paid part of the consideration under the said agreement and that he was always ready and wiling to pay the balance of sale consideration to his vendors and that there was absolutelyno relationship of land lord and tenant between himself and the respondent and that his possession of the suit land was protected under Section53-A of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882. The appellant also stated in his written statement that the respondent filed an application for his eviction on the file of the Deputy Tahsildar, Tenali with false allegations and that having failed in those attempts to evict him, the respondent filed the present suit with false and untenable allegations.