AMMANAMANCHI VENKATESWARLU Vs. THUMMURI GANGA RAJU AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Second Appeal arises out of a common type of action for an injunction. It is by the undisputed owner of an agricultural land. The defendants, however, have raised a contest setting up a right to the possession of the land as tenants under an oral lease. This defence has prevailed in the Courts below. The plaintiff has preferred this second appeal from the concurrent decisions of non-suit.

(2.) There is no controversy about the plaintiff's ownership of the land to which the suit relates. He obtained a decree in ejectment against one Veerasawami in O. S. No. 308 of 1938. The decree was made on 2nd February 1940. It is also common ground that the plaintiff was put in possession of the land in execution of the decree. He then granted a lease to one Suranna. Receipts evidencing payment of rent by the tenant to the plaintiff show that from 1943 to 1950 Suranna's lease was subsisting. The last receipt in point of time is Ex. A-9 of 15th January, 1950. The lower appellate Court rejected the argument that the receipts are not genuine and were brought into existence to sustain the plea of the plaintiff, primarily because D. W. 5 testified to Suranna's tenancy for a period of ten years. The evidence of D. W. 5 contains an unqualified admission that Suranna was plaintiff's tenant and the lease lasted for ten years. It follows that Suranna's tenancy till 1953 is a matter of admission. There is no documentary evidence adduced by the defendants to prove the lease. On the other hand, the plaintiff filed Ex. A-2, which proves payment of land revenue by him continuously from 1945 till the date of suit. The plaintiff also relied on Exs. A-10 to A-26, which evidence payments by him to a Co-operative Society for supply of water for the irrigation of the lands. These payments relate to the entire period from 1952 to 1964.

(3.) The oral evidence adduced by the plaintiff has not commended itself to the Courts below. P. W. 1 is the plaintiff. He speaks to the cultivation of the land by Suranna as his tenant, which is accepted as true by the lower appellate court because of the documentary evidence and the admission of D. W. 5. He proves the payment of land revenue by him as also the payments to the Co-operative Society. His evidence that he cultivated the land was disbelieved because he admits that he did not own cattle and he could not give the names of persons who helped him in the agricultural operations, except that of P. W. 2. The latter, according to the Subordinate Judge, did not corroborate the testimony of the plaintiff. The evidence of P. W. 3 was also regarded as inadequate to prove the cultivation of the land by the plaintiff with the help of P. W. 2.