ERANKI VEERAVENKATA SATYANARAYANAMURTHI Vs. JIGATALA AYYANNA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a miscellaneous appeal against the judgment and decre of the Additional Subordinate Judge, Kakinada, in A.S. No. 160 of 1952 reversing the judgment and decree of the Additional District Munsif, Kakinada, in O.S. No. 150 of 1951 and remanding the suit for fresh disposal.

(2.) The suit out of which this appeal arises was filed for ejectment of the defendants from the plaint schedule lands and also for recovery of arrears of rent alleging that the plaintiff had taken the lands for cultivation from the owner, Veldi Narayanamurthi, and granted a sub-lease of the same to the defendants on a rent of Rs. 320, under a kadapa, dated 25th May, 1946, for a period of one year, that the defendants, in spite of the expiry of the lease period, have continued to remain in possession and failed to pay the rent and give the lands back to the plaintiff.

(3.) The defendants filed a written statement denying having executed the kadapa, dated 25th May, 1946, in favour of the plaintiff and also the plaintiff having taken the lands from the original owner and stated that they had taken the lands on lease from the owner Narayanamurthi. They further state that they had acquired occupancy rights in these lands by virtue of Madras Act, XVIII of 1936. They inter alia denied that they ever paid rent to the plaintiff and stated that if any documents were filed as having been executed by them in favour of the plaintiff, they should be deemed to have been forged and brought about by the landholder Narayanamurthi with a view to defeat their occupancy rights taking advantage of their illiteracy and the fact that Narayanamurthi and the plaintiff are closely related. On these pleadings, the Additional District Munsif framed six issues, and evidence was led on behalf of the parties. On the evidence produced, the Additional District Munsif decreed the suit holding that the defendants had taken the lands on lease from the plaintiff. He also held that as the defendants had taken the lands from the plaintiff on lease, the question whether they acquired occupancy rights or not under Act XVIII of 1936 does not arise for consideration. Aggrieved by the judgment and decree, the defendants went in appeal.