V NAGABHUSHANAMMA Vs. BUGGA MUTT TIRUPATI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The defendants 3 to 7, who are the legal representatives of the deceased first defendant are the appellants in this second appeal. The fust respondent is the plaintiff in the suit

(2.) The allegations in the plaint in, so far as they are relevant for the second appeal are as follows:- The plaintiff-Mutt, who was the owner of the suit schedule property, granted lease to one Singamachetty Munaswamy on 1.8.1882 for raising "Malle" and Molla garden. Again the schedule mentioned lands were leased out to the said Singam Chetty Munaswamy under registered lease deed dated 11.7.1885. According to the terms of the lease, lessee shall raise only "Malle" and "Molla flower garden on paying a yearly rent at the rate of Rs. 1.00 per gunta payable in the month of Vikasi of every year and also give the plaintiff-Mutt four measures of "Malle Moggalu every year. It was further agreed on breach of any conditions of the lease the lessee should surrender the land to the lessor. The original lessee, Singani Chetty Munuswamy died and his son and grand son viz Abboy alias Munaswamy Chetty and (2) Munaswamy Chetty came into possession of the lands as lessees. On 14.4.1919 under the deed which was termed as registered sale deed, Ungarala Garitaiah, the father of the defendant No. 1 purchased the said schedule mentioned property from Abboy alias Munaswamy Chetty and Munaswamy Chetty. Ungarala Garitaiah who was in possession of the schedule mentioned property raising and maintaining flower garden and paying the rent stipulated as per the terms stipulated in the lease deed. On the death of Ungarala Garitaiah the leasehold rights devolved upon his son, the first defendant herein and he is bound by the terms of the said lease. The first defendant in collusion with the second defendant converted the schedule mentioned lands into house sites in or about the year 1965 and the second defendant, who is sub-lessee under the first defendant, put up superstructures on the schedule mentioned land quite contrary to the terms and conditions of the lease agreement and thereby materially impaired and destroyed the utility of the schedule land. Since in the schedule mentioned, land, buildings were constructed and were not being used for the purpose of raising flower garden as stipulated in the original lease, the plaintiff issued a notice on 25.4.1972 terminating the lease and asking the defendants to surrender possession of the schedule mentioned land. Since the defendants did not surrender possession, the plaintiff filed the suit, O.S.No. 441/72 in the Court of the Second Additional District .Munsif, Tirupati (1) to recover possession of the schedule mentioned lands after ejecting the defendants (2) for mandatory injunction directing the defendant to remove the superstructures therein (3) directing the defendants to pay Rs. 43.50 per month with interest to the plaintiff and for future damages atRs.50/- per month and for costs.

(3.) The defendants 1, 3 to 8 filed written statement and contended that Singam Chetty Munaswamy took a permanent lease of the suit land on 11.7.1885, that mere was no condition in the lease that only flower garden should be raised. It was further alleged that breach of any of the conditions do not confer right on the plaintiff to forfeit the lease and also denied the payment of lease and set up title by adverse possession. It was also contended that the contract became frustrated and that the plaintiff lost his right as it did not exercise its rights within the statutory period.