Mulisetti Venkataramiah vs Allada Venkataswami

Umamaheswaram, J.—Having given my most anxious and careful consideration I am unable to interfere with the order of the Agent decreeing the Plaintiffs suit. The Agency Munsif held that he Plaintiff had not only made out his title to he suit property but also proved that he was possession and enjoyment of the suit pro-arty within 12 years prior to the filing of the patties He further held that the Defendant had (Dec.) 1987 Andh. Pra.

executed a lease deed in favour of the Plaintiff. On appeal, the Special Assistant Agent reversed into judgment for no valid or proper reasons. On a special appeal being preferred to the Agent to the Government of Andhra, East Godavari District, Kakinada, he restored the judgment oft the Agency Munsif. As against his judgment, the Petitioner has filed an application under Article 227 of the Constitution as also an application under Rule 48 of the Andhra Agency Rules, hereinafter referred to as the Rules.

They first contention raised by Sri Adavi Rama Rao on behalf of the Petitioner, is that the Agent erred in interfering with the decision of the Special Assistant Agent on a question of fact and holding that the lease deed genuine. He contended that under Rule of the Andhra Agency Rules, it was not 5en to the Agent to interfere on a question of ; and hold that the lease was genuine. Rule (2) of the Rules runs as follows:

In every appellate decree passed by an Agency Divisional Officer an appeal shall lie to the Agent to the State. Government on the grounds specified in Section 100, CPC Code, provided that the Agent to the State Government may for reasons to be recorded admit a special appeal on questions of fact.

Rule 50 provides for the dismissal of the special appeal in limine when the Agent comes to the conclusion that there is no ground to proceed with the appeal. It is further provided that if} he does not so dismiss, he shall cause a notice to be issued to the Respondent and proceed to'' dispose of such appeal as far as possible in the manner prescribed by the Code of Civil Procedure. It does not appear from the records that at the time of issuing notice, any special reasons were recorded holding that the special appeal, would be heard on questions of fact. Reading Rules 47 and 50 together, I am inclined to think that the meaning of the expression "admit" is to allow at the final stage a special appeal on questions of fact.

In this case, the Agent rightly interfered on the question of fact and held that the Kabuliat was a genuine document. The Agency Munsif relied on the oral evidence of P. Ws. 1 to 3 and came to the conclusion that the lease document executed by the Defendant. The special Assistant Agent did not address his mind to the evidence of P. Ws. 1 to 3. Nothing was elicited in the cross-examination of those witnesses to lead to the conclusion that they were perjuring themselves. The Special Assistant Agent also erred in thinking that as the Defendant disputed the document the Plaintiff had to examine the handwriting expert.

It is also clear from a comparison of the boundaries of the lease documents Exs. D-5 to D-10 that they do not tally with the boundaries of the lease deed Ex. P-l. , So everyone of the grounds given by the Special Assistant Agent for coming to the conclusion that the lease document was a forgery was wrong. I am unable to hold that the Agent committed any error of law or mistake of fact so as to warrant interference under, Article 227 of the Constitution or to direct the Agent to review his judgment under Rule 48 of the Andhra Agency Rules, It is clear that the Suit property Was purchased by the Plaintiff Vain revenue auction. The case of the Defendant was that the purchase by the Plaintiff was rename for and further, that he was in continuous possession and enjoyment of the property and that it was partitioned between him and his brother. The Defendant has not proved the specific case put (forward by him. During the course of the evidence, he examined D. W. 8 to show that the suit property was leased out by D. W. 8, to the Plaintiff for the years 1942 to 1944 and to the Defendant during the subsequent years. D. W. 8 did not produce the zamabandi accounts.

He was not prepared to state that there was any relinquishment deed executed by the Plaintiff in favour of the land-lord. In the circumstances, I am unable to accept the evidence of D. W. 8 that the Plaintiff relinquished the suit '' land and that D. W. 8 leased the suit land in his favour. The title of the Plaintiff has been . established beyond doubt and his possession and .enjoyment had been spoken to by the severely Plaintiff''s witnesses. The conclusion arrived at by the Agent is perfectly justified on the facts of the case.

As pointed out by Das J. in Waryam Singh and Another Vs. Amarnath and Another, , the power of superintendence under Article 227 should be exercised most sparingly and only in appropriate cases in order to keep the Subordinate Courts within the bounds of their authority and not for correcting mere errors. I have no doubt in my mind that the Agent has not committed any error. There are no grounds to interfere with his conclusion.

In the result, both the Civil Revision Petition No. 1504 of 1954 and C. M.P. No. 8770/1954 are dismissed with costs.