VEPPALEM BATTI GOPAL RAO Vs. YERRAGUDI SUBRAMANYAM VARMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Sri L. J. Veera Reddy, the learned counsel representing the appellants and Sri M. P. Chandramouli, the learned counsel representing the respondent.

(2.) SRI L. J. Veera Reddy, the learned Counsel representing the appellants had taken this Court through the substantial questions of law on the strength of which the second appeal was admitted and would maintain that even if the findings of the Court of first instance and also the Appellate Court are to be taken into consideration, the tenancy not being in serious controversy unless and until the appellants are evicted by due process of law, the possession cannot be disturbed. The learned counsel also would maintain that when specific stand had been taken by the appellants relating to the execution of the agreement of sale by the wife of the plaintiff, the non-examination of the wife is a serious lapse and adverse inference should have been drawn in this regard, and hence, the findings recorded cannot be sustained and the second appeal is to be allowed.

(3.) PER contra, Sri M. P. Chandramouli, the learned counsel representing the respondent would submit that the fact that the respondent/plaintiff is the owner of the property is not in serious controversy. Even otherwise, it is not the case of the appellants that the owner of the property at any point of time executed any agreement of sale. Even otherwise, the agreement of sale cannot be believed for the reasons, which had been recorded in detail by the Appellate court. The learned counsel also would maintain that though the appellate Court slightly modified the relief virtually in a way, the findings recorded being concurrent findings, in a second appeal normally such findings need not be disturbed. The learned counsel also placed strong reliance on the relevant statutory provision under Section 111 (g) (2) of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 and would maintain that in the light of the same, the relief of recovery of possession also which had been granted by the appellate Court cannot be found fault. The learned counsel also placed reliance on certain decisions.