KOMIRINENI ROSAYYA Vs. MUNNAMGI ROSAYYA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Defendants 1 and 5 are the appellants and the appeal arises out of a suit filed by the plaintiff in ejectment and for recovery of profits. Defendants 1 and 5 are father and son. The plaintiff's case was that the defendants 1 and 5 were in possession of his lands as lessees, that they used to pay a particular rate of rent for some years, that when the rent was raised they did not pay it and that when they were asked to vacate, they obstructed the plaintiff from taking possession of the properties. The other defendants (defendants 2 to 4 and 6 to 9) are said to have helped them in the said obstruction. Defendants 1 and 5 pleaded that the properties had been sold by the plaintiff to them, that they had been in possession of the same all along and that the suit was barred by limitation by adverse possession. The other defendants pleaded that there was no cause of action as against them, that they did not obstruct the plaintiff and that the suit was liable to be dismissed's o far as they were concerned.

(2.) Both the Courts have found that the property belonged to the plaintiff, that the plaintiff was in possession within 12 years prior to the suit and that the suit was not barred by limitation by adverse possession, that the transaction of defendants 1 and 5 was in the nature of a lease and not a sale and accordingly decreed the suit for possession against all the defendants and gave a decree for past profits and for costs against the first defendant. On appeal the decree of the lower Court was confirmed. Four issues were framed which were all issues of fact and on all those issues the lower appellate Court found against the appellant. A second appeal herefore cannot lie on a decision of facts.

(3.) At the time when the second appeal was admitted, it was pointed out that Exs. P-2 and P- 4 were inadmissible in evidence and that a judgment based on inadmissible evidence could be interfered with in second appeal. Ex. P-2 is a document which relates to a neighboring land and not the suit land, but that was admitted in evidence because the second defendant was a party to that document and therefore it was admissible as against him. The judgment is not based merely on Ex. P-2 but is based on other evidence in the case and the learned judge had to consider the pleas of the various contesting defendants. A document which is admissible in evidence as against a particular individual has necessarily to be referred to in the judgment, and it cannot be said that, merely because the judgment makes reference to a particular document which is admissible as against one of the defendants, the judgment as against the other defendants is based on that document. The learned Judge has dealt with the oral evidence in two paragraphs of his judgment, and that was admissible as against all the defendants. I do not therefore think I will be justified in interfering with the judgment of the lower Court on the ground that Ex. P-2 is not admissible as against the appellants.