KARUMANCHI VARALAKSHMAMMA Vs. KARUMANCHI VEERARAGHAVAMMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This second appeal arises out of a suit Instituted by the respondent for the recovery of possession of items 1 to 10 described in the plaint schedule and niaktha or rent of Rs. 28.00 for the year 1949 from the 1st defendant. The items 1 to 9 of the plaint schedule are agricultural lands. Item 10 is a house with a vacant site. The case of the plaintiff is that these properties belonged to her husband one Guravayya, and on his death she inherited them. Subsequently she leased out items 1 to 9 under a registered Cowls dated 23-2-1935 to the husband of the 1st defendant. Ramachandrayya and marked as Ex. A-1. According to the terms of that lease Rammhandrayya had to pay an annual rent of Rs. 19.00 for 50 years for the lands comprised in items 1 to 9 of the plaint schedule. By a Rental agreement dated 20-2-1935 Ramchandrayya took on lease the house and the vacant site comprised in item 10 of the plaint schedule on a stipulation to pay Rs. 9.00 rent per annum. The lessee, Ramchandrayya, it is alleged sold item 1 to the third defendant in the present action under a sale deed dated 19-4-1937, and marked as Ex. B-3. By a further sale deed dated 31-5-1948 and marked as Ex. A-20 Ramchandrayya is alleged to have sold item 5 to the second defendant. Having come to know of these alienation the plaintiff gave notice to Ramchandrayya stating that the lease had come to an end. She filed a suit for recovery of the properties in 1950. The 1st defendant in the suit is the wife of the lessee, Ramchandrayya. The second defendant is the alienee of item 5, and the 3rd defendant is the purchaser of item 1. Defendants 4 to 8 are sub-lessees in respect of other items. With regard to item 10, the case of the plaintiff is that Ramchandrayya pulled down and dismantled the old house and reconstructed a fresh one and, therefore, the plaintiff is entitled to put an end to the lease and recover the property.

(2.) The appellant before me who is the widow of Ramchandrayya, has filed a written statement contending that the properties in question do not belong to the plaintiff. It is alleged that Guravayya was not divided in estate from his brothers Chinna Seethayya and Ramayya. On the death of Guruvayya and Ramayya- the properties are stated to have devolved on China Seethayya who died leaving two sons. Ramchandrayya and Ramayya. It is stated the plaintiff had only a right of maintenance and she was not entitled to the properties-Further it is alleged that the leases under Exs. A-l and A-2 were only nominal, that though the properties belonged to Ramchandrayya alone in order to avoid claims by others at the instance of certain mediators the two documents were executed and they were intended to be and in fact were nothing more than the maintenance arrangements. The other defence set up was that no forfeiture had been incurred. Defendants 2 and 3, the aliveness also filed written statements denying the right of the plaintiff to recover the possession of the lands. The sub-lessees defendants 4 to 8 contended that they were the sub-tenants for & long time and that they should not be evicted.

(3.) The learned District Munsiff of Kanigiri, settled appropriate issues and found: (i) that the suit properties belonged to Guruvayya alone and that after his death they devolved upon his widow, the present plaintiff, and (ii) that the lease-deeds Exs. A-1 and A-2 were not nominal transactions intended to be nothing more than the maintenance arrangements as pleaded by the defendants. He also held that by reason of conveyances executed by Ramachandrayya under Exs. B-3 and A-20 there was the denial of the title of the landlord resulting in forfeiture of the leases. He however, passed a decree for possession of items 1 and 5 only. The trial courts also held that the dismantling of the house in item 10 and building of another therein will not incur forfeiture and disallowed the plaintiffs claim with respect to that item.