V RAGHAVAMMA Vs. V MEKERAJU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiffs are the appellants. The suit is laid for possession. The plaint case is that the property was originally gifted by 1st plaintiff's father and his brother on 27-4-1930 giving life estate to her and the vested remainder to her two sons, Umamaheswara Rao and Vishnu Prasad. She based the property to her two sons in equal moities on an annual rent of 25 bags of paddy and on the death of Umamaheswara Rao, In 1974, defendants 1 to 3, who are the sons of Umamaheshwara Rao and D-4, the wife of Umamaheswara Rao, surrendered their share to the 1st plaintiff and similarly her other son Vishnu Prasad also surrendered his half share and thereafter she leased the property to plaintiffs 2 and 3 who are the subsequent lessees as per the lease deed dated 4-4-1974 and who are the cultivating tenants since then. However, the defendants 1 and 2 filed a suit O.S. No. 442 of 1975 on the file of the District Munsif, Bapatla, and obtained injunction on the allegation that she surrendered her life estate which is false and the demand for possession is of no avail and hence the suit.

(2.) The 4th defendant, wife of Umamaheswara Rao, filed her written statement contending that the plaintiff surrendered her life interest to both sons in two halvas and they have been enjoying the property since then and the surrender of the land by them is not true and the lease in favour of plaintiffs 2 and 3 is denied and their claim on the basis of surrender of life estate is reiterated. On this controversy, the Court below framed 7 issues as found in paragraph 5 of the judgment.

(3.) The Court below held that the surrender of life estate pleaded by the defendants is not true. It also held that the plea of surrender made by defendants 1 to 3 of the schedule property after the death of Umamaheswara Rao in 1974 is also not true. It appears at a later stage of the trial, the defendant No. 4 filed an additional written statement raising the plea that if the surrender of life estate pleaded by them is not true, they are entitled to continue as statutory tenants under the Andhra Pradesh (Andhra Area) Tenancy Act, (Act 1.8 of 1956) and the surrender by them as lessees is false. They also pleaded that Section 12 of the Andhra Tenancy Act has no application since, in terms, it does not apply to the facts pleaded in the plaint. For this a rejoinder was filed by the plaintiffs. The relevant portion necessary for this appeal reads as follows :