MULISETTI VENKATARAMIAH Vs. ALLADA VENKATASWAMI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HAVING given my most anxious and careful consideration I am unable to interfere with the order of the Agent decreeing the Plaintiffs suit. The Agency Munsif held that he Plaintiff had not only made out his title to he suit property but also proved that he was possession and enjoyment of the suit pro -arty within 12 years prior to the filing of the patties He further held that the Defendant had executed a lease deed in favour of the Plaintiff. On appeal, the Special Assistant Agent reversed into judgment for no valid or proper reasons. On a special appeal being preferred to the Agent to the Government of Andhra, East Godavari District, Kakinada, he restored the judgment oft the Agency Munsif. As against his judgment, the Petitioner has filed an application under Article 227 of the Constitution as also an application under Rule 48 of the Andhra Agency Rules, hereinafter referred to as the Rules.

(2.) THEY first contention raised by Sri Adavi Rama Rao on behalf of the Petitioner, is that the Agent erred in interfering with the decision of the Special Assistant Agent on a question of fact and holding that the lease deed genuine. He contended that under Rule of the Andhra Agency Rules, it was not 5en to the Agent to interfere on a question of ; and hold that the lease was genuine. Rule (2) of the Rules runs as follows:

(3.) IN the result, both the Civil Revision Petition No. 1504 of 1954 and C. M.P. No. 8770/1954 are dismissed with costs.