PALIKA SATHIRAJU Vs. PYDAH SOMA MALLESWARA RAO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The unsuccessful defendant is the Appellant. The respondents herein are the plaintiffs. The Plaintiffs filed the suit for eviction of the defendant from the plaint schedule property.

(2.) Briefly stated the facts are that the plaintiffs filed the suit mentioning in the plaint inter alia that the plaintiffs are the owners of the plaint schedule property which is a mango tope. They appointed the defendant as their watchman a few years ago for plaint schedule property and they allowed the defendant to live in the thatched hut existing in the mango tope belonging to the plaintiffs. On the directions of the plaintiffs the defendant was growing vegetables on small pieces of the land and the expenses therefor were being borne by the plaintiffs. The defendant suddenly became greedy and started appropriating the vegetables etc., for himself. Therefore, the plaintiffs paid an amount of Rs.1200.00 to the defendant on 24-4-1980 and terminated his services. Fearing that the defendant might enter into the schedule property highhandedly they filed a suit O.S.No.17 of 1981 on the file of the Principal District Munsif s Court, Kakinada, and obtained an interim injunction against the defendant. Having come to know of the same, the defendant entered into the plaint schedule property and occupied the hut, and hence the suit.

(3.) The defendant resisted the suit by filing a prolix written statement mentioning inter alia that he was the tenant of the suit schedule property, having been inducted into the same about 30 years ago and he was continuing as a tenant holding over. He filed ATC No.434 of 1981 having come to know that the plaintiffs in collusion with the Village Karanam was trying to correct the pass books. He raised the thatched shed in the leasehold property and he was also raising tobacco seedlings, bobbarulu, ragi, horsegram, redgram etc., dry crops and that the mango usufruct was being shared equally between the landlords and the defendant. He pleaded further that the rent payable over the schedule land was Rs.350.00 per year and he had been paying the rents regularly, and that there had been an attempt to dispossess him forcibly by bringing rowdy elements. Apprehending danger he filed ATC No.4 of 1981 before the Vacation Court at Rajahmundry. That petition was dismissed for default. According to the defendant, the suit schedule property is not a mango tope as contended and a part of it is dry land wherein the dry crops are being raised. Apprehending that the defendant would get perpetual tenancy rights the plaintiffs, according to the defendant filed the present suit against him with all false averments made in the plaint.