AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Dr V R K Krupa Sagar, J
Defendant No.4 before the trial Court preferred this Appeal under Section 96 of Code of Civil Procedure (C.P.C.). Respondent No.1 is the plaintiff in the suit. Respondent Nos.2, 3 and 4 are defendant Nos.1, 2 and 3 respectively in the suit.
Rights over various immovable properties described as A schedule to E schedule of the plaint is the subject matter of controversy. There was Sri B.Surya Rao. Under Ex.A.1-registered partition deed dated 08.01.1971 there was partition among the sharers and the plaint schedule properties fell to the share of Sri B.Surya Rao.
Smt. B.Suryakantham claims that she is the wife of Sri B.Surya Rao and to them a daughter was born by name Hymavathi. There is Smt. B.Narayanamma. She claims that she is the only wife of Sri B.Surya Rao and to them a son by name Subba Rao was born.
Smt. B.Suryakantham under Ex.A.2-registered settlement deed dated 10.01.1971 said to have been executed by Sri B.Surya Rao claimed that she has been the title holder of plaint schedule properties. It is with those assertions she filed O.S.No.214 of 2006 seeking for recovery of possession of plaint schedule properties from the defendants. In the suit there were four defendants. Defendant No.1, defendant No.3 and defendant No.4 by their written statements showed that they have been cultivating tenants of various items of the plaint schedule properties. Among them defendant No.4-Sri S.Siva Rama Krishna/appellant herein claimed that he has been the cultivating tenant for plaint E schedule properties. It is defendant No.2-Smt. B.Narayanamma who claimed that she is the legitimate wife of Sri B.Surya Rao and contested saying that plaintiff had no right to seek recovery of properties from them.
Learned IV Additional District Judge, Tanuku, on considering the rival pleadings, settled the following issues for trial:
Whether the plaintiff is entitled for recovery of possession of the plaint schedule property as prayed for?
Whether the suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties?
Whether the suit is barred by time?
To what relief?
At the trial, there was evidence of PWs.1 and 2 and Exs.A.1 to A.37 for plaintiff and there was evidence of DWs.1 to 8 and Ex.B.1 for defendants.
After considering the entire evidence on record and after considering the rival contentions, the learned trial Court recorded categorical findings. With reference to the controversy as to who was the legally wedded wife of Sri Surya Rao, the learned trial Court observed that Ex.A.24 was the Marriage Lagna Patrika showing that the marriage of Sri B.Surya Rao was fixed with B.Suryakantham and the marriage was to be solemnized on 12.08.1965. It further mentioned that in Ex.A.2-registered settlement deed executed by Sri B.Surya Rao there is specific mention that Smt. B.Suryakantham is his wife and Hymavathi/PW.2 is his daughter. It also observed that during the years 1998-1999 Exs.A.5 to A.8-letters were exchanged between the father and the daughter. Considering the oral evidence of PWs.1 and 2 and the above referred documents and other evidence, the learned trial Court recorded a categorical finding that Smt. B.Suryakantham was the legally wedded wife. It further observed that the contention of defendant No.2-Smt. B.Narayanamma that she was the wife was not supported by any evidence. Learned trial Court accepted Ex.A.2-registered settlement deed and the claim of the plaintiff - Smt. B.Suryakantham that being the owner she was entitled to seek recovery of possession of all the immovable properties from the hands of the defendants. Therefore, it passed a judgment in favour of the plaintiff and the operative portion of the judgment reads as below:
In the result
a) The suit is decreed with costs directing all the defendants to handover the vacant possession of entire plaint A to E schedule property to the plaintiff within two months from the date of judgment, failing which the plaintiff is entitled to recover the possession of entire plaint A to E schedule property as per law.
b) The plaintiff is entitled to file separate application for future profits from the date of suit till the date of delivery of property.
Tenant of plaint E schedule properties who is shown as defendant No.4 in the suit is the sole appellant here.
Sri Sanjay, the learned counsel representing the appellant on behalf of Sri Ramakrishna Akurathi, the learned counsel on record submitted arguments and contended that the tenancy rights of appellant over this agricultural land shall be protected and the appellant cannot be directed to handover possession of the plaint E schedule properties to respondent No.1/plaintiff. He further contended that the observations of the learned trial Court in stating that respondent No.1 was the legally wedded wife is incorrect. He prays the Court to upset the impugned judgment.
Sri M.V.Suresh, the learned counsel appearing for respondent No.1/plaintiff, submits that defendant No.2 in the suit who claimed marital status with late B.Surya Rao preferred A.S.No.430 of 2016 and that was dismissed by this Court on 12.03.2024 and therefore, the present appellant cannot be permitted to argue concerning the marital status of rival contestants in the suit and the observations and findings given by the Court below. Learned counsel further argued that the proceedings before Special Officer for Tenancy matters attained finality by the orders of this Court and it was in those circumstances only the learned trial Court found that this appellant/defendant No.4 had no right to hold possession of the plaint E schedule properties and the impugned judgment is right on facts and law and does not require any interference.
The following point falls for consideration:
Whether the learned trial Court committed a factual or legal error with reference to the legal status of appellant and reached to incorrect conclusions requiring interference?
POINT:
The evidence on record indicates the following aspects:
This appellant seeking declaration that he is the cultivating tenant filed A.T.C.No.34 of 2006 before Tenancy Tribunal, Kovvur and thereafter it was transferred to Tenancy Tribunal, Nidadavole and was renumbered as A.T.C.No.12 of 2008. That case was filed as against respondent No.1/plaintiff. After due enquiry that A.T.C. was dismissed as could be seen from Ex.A.36. Thereafter this appellant preferred A.T.A.No.21 of 2010 before the learned District Judge, Eluru. After due hearing that appeal was allowed and he was declared as cultivating tenant. Challenging that, respondent No.1 herein/plaintiff preferred C.R.P.No.2915 of 2012. A learned Judged of this Court allowed the said revision evidenced by Ex.A.37. Thus, by virtue of Ex.A.37 it is clear that this appellant was found not a cultivating tenant of plaint E schedule properties. It is not the case of this appellant that he is the owner of the plaint E schedule properties. Since he is neither an owner nor a cultivating tenant, he is only a person in unauthorized occupation of the property. It is already seen that by virtue of Exs.A.1 and A.2 respondent No.1 was found to be the title holder of plaint schedule properties including plaint E schedule properties. Even as per the pleadings of this appellant before the trial Court, he obtained possession of this land only from Sri B.Surya Rao who is the husband of respondent No.1. Now Sri B.Surya Rao is no more as he died evidenced by Ex.A.3-death certificate. Since Sri B.Surya Rao under Ex.A.2-registered settlement deed had conferred title of these properties on respondent No.1 and her daughter, the trial Court is completely right in decreeing the suit in favour of respondent No.1 directing this appellant to vacate the suit schedule property. The contention of the appellant that his right to hold possession of the property be protected cannot be accepted since he failed to disclose his right to hold possession of the property. In these circumstances, this Court finds that the impugned judgment is right on facts and law and there are no merits in what is contended on behalf of the appellant. Hence, the point is answered against the appellant.
In the result, this Appeal is dismissed. Consequently, the impugned judgment dated 10.03.2016 of learned IV Additional District Judge, Tanuku in O.S.No.214 of 2006 stands confirmed. Appellant shall deliver vacant possession of the property to respondent No.1/plaintiff on or before 19.05.2024, failing which respondent No.1/plaintiff is entitled to have it done through process of law. There shall be no order as to costs in this appeal.
As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.