KORA KRISHNA KUMARI Vs. CHALUVADI VENKATESWARLU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE 1st respondent (for short 'the respondent') filed A. T. C. No. 59 of 1992 before the Special Officer, Tenancy Tribunal (under the Andhra Pradesh (Andhra Area)Tenancy Act, 1956 (for short 'the Act') - cum - II Additional Junior Civil judge, Ongole, for the relief of declaration that the sale deed, dated 02. 12. 1992, marked as Ex. B. 1, executed by respondents 2 to 11 herein, in favour of the petitioner, alienating the property mentioned therein, is contrary to the provisions of the Act, and is liable to be set aside. He also claimed the relief of perpetual injunction. He pleaded that the land was leased to him by respondents 2 to 11 and that he has been the tenant of the land, for the past ten years prior to filing of A. T. C. It was also mentioned that the rent is to be enhanced to Rs. 600/-, after completion of the initial period of three years, and to Rs. 1,000/-, three years thereafter. He is said to have spent about rs. 15,000/- for developing the land, and for raising the casurina plantation. The transaction is said to have been covered by a document, dated 25. 10. 1992, and that on 30. 10. 1992, casurina plants, worth Rs. 6,000/-, were planted. It was also alleged that black gram crop was raised within the plantation.

(2.) THE respondent contended that, on the basis of purchase of land through Ex. B. 1, the petitioner herein spoiled the crop and has taken possession. According to him, Ex. B. 1 is hit by Section 16 of the Act and that he is vested with a preemptive right to purchase the land, in the event of the owners willing to sell it. Respondents 2 to 11 remained ex parte and the petitioner alone contested the matter. In his counter, the petitioner denied the allegations of the respondent. It is also stated that a lease agreement said to have been executed in favour of the petitioner, is not binding on other owners. Through its order, dated 14. 09. 1998, the trial Court dismissed the A. T. C. Aggrieved thereby, the respondent filed A. T. A. No. 28 of 1998 in the Court of District judge, Ongole. The appeal was allowed by judgment, dated 13. 12. 2004. The same is challenged in this C. R. P.

(3.) SRI K. Sarva Bhouma Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that the very basis for the plea of tenancy raised by the respondent was the lease agreement, dated 25. 10. 1992, marked as Ex. A. 5, and even after eschewing it from consideration, the lower appellate Court held that there existed tenancy in favour of the respondent. He contends that even if that Ex. A. 5 is true and binding, it was only for raising casurina plantation and Section 18 (9) of the act exempts such leases from its purview. He submits that the lower appellate court has taken into account, the additional evidence in the form of Exs. A. 6 to a. 9, without there being any oral evidence. He further submits that the said evidence referable only to Ex. A. 5 there exists a clear contradiction in the findings.