CH MAHALAKSHMI NAIDU Vs. D V NOOKARAJU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Appellants are the Defendants in the Suit. They are assailing the judgment and decree of the learned III Additional Judge, Visakhapatnam in A.S.No.4 of 1979, dated 30-9-1988 reversing the judgment and decree of the Principal District Munsif, Anakapalle in O.S.No.444/76. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to in this Second Appeal as they are arrayed in the suit.

(2.) Plaintiff filed a Suit O.S.No.444/76 on the file of the Additional District Munsif, Anakapalle for recovery of 0.92 cents of dry land and for profits of Rs.900/- @Rs.300/- per year and subsequently for interest and costs.

(3.) The case of the Plaintiff was that the lands described in the suit schedule were purchased from the previous owners Sri Kakatala Suryam on 15-9-1989 under a Registered sale deed. Since then he has been in possession and enjoyment of the suit land and the Defendants attempted to trespass into the land. He made a complaint to the police and thereafter he filed a suit O.S.No.168/75 for permanent injunction restraining the Defendants from interfering with the plaintiffs possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property. However, the suit was dismissed on the ground that the plaintiff was not in possession and therefore present suit has been filed for declaration and possession. It is the case of the plaintiff that the earlier Tenant Sri Chainulu, the father of the Defendant died in the year 1970 and thereafter the Defendants did not exercise the option as required under Section 12 of Andhra Tenancy Act by issuing a statutory notice within three months from the date of the death of earlier tenant Sri Chainulu. Therefore, the Tenancy came to an automatic end with the death of Sri Chainulu. The Defendants were not cultivating tenants and they were only trespassers and therefore the suit was laid for eviction and also for mesne profits. It was contested by the Defendants stating that their father Chainulu was cultivating the land for the last several years even prior to the purchase of the land by the plaintiff. Even after the death of Mr. Chainulu, they continued to cultivate the land. Earlier yearly rent was Rs.30/- and later it was enhanced to Rs,40/- and subsequently after the death of Mr.Chainulu it was increased to Rs.150/- per year. It is also their case that when their father died, the plaintiff agreed to continue the lease on enhanced lease amount of Rs.150/- per year. But, however the plaintiff with the help of the influential persons in the town has been harassing the Defendants. On the basis of the pleadings, the trial Court framed the following issues: