Andhra Pradesh High Court – Amravati
Gummadi Veeraiah Another vs Talapati Chennaiah on 28 February, 2025
APHC010124112000
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA
PRADESH
[3365]
AT AMARAVATI
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
FRIDAY ,THE TWENTY EIGHTH DAY OF FEBRUARY
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE JUSTICE DR V R K KRUPA SAGAR
SECOND APPEAL NO: 209/2000
Between:
Gummadi Veeraiah & Another and Others ...APPELLANT(S)
AND
Talapati Chennaiah ...RESPONDENT
Counsel for the Appellant(S):
1. VENKATESWARLU KOLLA
Counsel for the Respondent:
1. P GOPAL DAS
The Court made the following:
2
Dr.VRKS,J
S.A.Nos.209&561 of 2000
APHC010124272000
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA
PRADESH
[3365]
AT AMARAVATI
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
FRIDAY ,THE TWENTY EIGHTH DAY OF FEBRUARY
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE JUSTICE DR V R K KRUPA SAGAR
SECOND APPEAL NO: 561/2000
Between:
Gummadi Veeraiah & Anr and Others ...APPELLANT(S)
AND
Talapati Chennaiah ...RESPONDENT
Counsel for the Appellant(S):
1. VENKATESWARLU KOLLA
Counsel for the Respondent:
1. P GOPAL DAS
The Court made the following:
3
Dr.VRKS,J
S.A.Nos.209&561 of 2000
THE HON'BLE JUSTICE Dr. V.R.K.KRUPA SAGAR
SECOND APPEAL Nos. 209 and 561 of 2000
COMMON JUDGMENT:
1. The second appeal No.209 of 2000 under section 100 of
the CPC is filed by the appellants/ plaintiffs impugning the
common judgment dated 29.07.1999 in A.S.No.62 of 1990 of the
learned I Additional District Judge, Guntur.
2. The second appeal No.561 of 2000 under section 100 of
the CPC is filed by the appellants/ plaintiffs impugning the
common judgment dated 29.07.1999 in A.S.No.72 of 1990 of the
learned I Additional District Judge, Guntur.
3. The following facts are required to be noticed:
A wife and husband together purchased 180 square yards
of site in AT Agraharam in Survey No.91/B on 23.02.1983 for
Rs.5,000/- from one Mr. Sastri under Ex.A12 registered sale
dead. They filled O.S.No.475 of 1985 against Sri Talapati
Chennaiah. In the plaint, it was alleged that the plaintiffs after
purchasing the vacant site raised two thatched houses. In May,
1983, they leased out the property to the defendant on a monthly
rent of Rs.30/-. The tenant paid rent for one month. He committed
default thereafter i.e., from 01.06.1983 onwards. Therefore, they
4
Dr.VRKS,J
S.A.Nos.209&561 of 2000got issued Ex.A13 quit notice calling upon him to vacate the
property by the end of June, 1983. Defendant failed to vacate it.
Therefore, the suit was laid seeking the reliefs of
1. For ejectment and delivery of possession
2. Recovery of Rs.690/- towards arrear rent
3. Future mesne profits from the date of suit till the date of
realization
4. The defendant/ Sri T.Chennaiah contested the suit. In his
written statement, he stated that there was 800 square yards of
poramboke land in Sy.No.91/2B. He and others occupied it
decades ago. He has been in possession of this property for
more than 27 years. When these plaintiffs were obstructing his
possession and enjoyment, he had already filed O.S.No.214 of
1984 and after due enquiry an interim injunction was also granted
in his favour. That the plaintiffs as well as their predecessors in
title were not in possession of this property and did not have any
title over this property. The suit is not maintainable without a
prayer for declaration of a title. That this defendant had perfected
his title by adverse possession also. He sought dismissal of the
suit.
5
Dr.VRKS,J
S.A.Nos.209&561 of 2000
5. At about the time when O.S.No.475 of 1985 referred above
was filed, another set of parties with similar factual background
filed O.S.No.677 of 1984. Both suits were pending before learned
II Additional Munsif Magistrate, Guntur. Both the suits were
consolidated, and common evidence was recorded. We are here
concerned with only O.S.No.475 of 1985 in which the following
issues were settled by the learned trial court:
1. Whether the suit is maintainable without seeking for
declaration of the plaintiff’s title?
2. Whether the landlord and tenant relationship pleaded by
the plaintiff is true?
3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the relief of eviction as
prayed for?
4. To what relief?
6. The issues in the other suit were also settled. Together in
both the suits, there was the evidence of PWs.1 to 4 and DWs.1
to 3 and Exs.A1 to A14 and Exs.B1 to B10. By a common
judgement dated 27.02.1990. the learned II Additional Munsif
Magistrate, Guntur granted the decree for eviction in both the
suits while dismissing the claims for recovery of arrear rent and
6
Dr.VRKS,J
S.A.Nos.209&561 of 2000
future mesne profits. The operative portion of the judgement in
O.S.No.475 of 1985 reads as below:
“In the result, the suit is decreed with costs directing
the defendant to vacate the suit schedule premises within
one month from the date of decree, falling which the
plaintiffs will be at liberty to evict the defendant through
process of court. The relief for recovery of rent and future
profits stand dismissed.”
7. In its judgement, the trial court recorded the following
findings —
• That by virtue of Ex.A12, plaintiffs in O.S.No.475 of 1985
established the title, however, plaintiffs failed to prove that
the defendant was their tenant.
• That the defendant failed to prove title by adverse
possession.
After recording such findings, it passed the judgement in the
manner referred above. We are concerned only with the
judgement of the trial court in O.S.No.475 of 1985.
8. Both the parties were aggrieved of the said judgment.
Accordingly, the plaintiffs who lost part of their claim with
reference to arrear rents and mesne profits preferred A.S.No.72
7
Dr.VRKS,J
S.A.Nos.209&561 of 2000
of 1990. The defendant aggrieved by the order of eviction
preferred A.S.No.62 of 1990. Both appeals were heard and
disposed of by a common judgement dated 29.07.1999 by the
learned I Additional District Judge, Guntur. The operative portion
of the common judgement in those two appeals read as below:
For the above mentioned reasons, A.S.No.72/90 is
dismissed. A.S.No.62/90 is allowed. The Judgment and the
decree in 0.S.No.475 of 1985 on the file of II Addl. Junior
Civil Judge, Guntur are set aside and the said suit is
dismissed in toto, However, in these circumstances, where
I had already held that the plaintiffs established their title
through additional evidence and through Ex A-12 and
where the plaintiffs are estopped from claiming declaration
of title in accordance with the orders in C.R.P.No.1265/95
on the file of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad
I consider it appropriate to direct both the parties to bear
their respective costs throughout.”
It is to be noticed that while the first appeal was pending
before the appellate court, the original plaintiffs filed I.A.No.1127
of 1999 seeking permission to adduce additional evidence. That
was allowed. Ex.A15 to A17 were marked on behalf of the
plaintiffs/ appellants before the first appellate court. There was
also a petition for amendment of plaint in I.A.No.288 of 1993
whereunder the original plaintiffs sought amendment of plaint to
incorporate the prayer for declaration of title. The first appellate
court allowed it. The original defendant challenged it before this
8
Dr.VRKS,J
S.A.Nos.209&561 of 2000court in CRP.No.1265 of 1995. In a very lucid order, a learned
Judge of this court by an order dated 11.08.1998 allowed the
revision and set aside the prayer for amendment of plaint for
declaration of title. After the orders in the revision, the learned
first appellate court disposed of the appeals. Though it dismissed
the appeal filed by the plaintiffs and allowed the appeal filed by
the defendant, the judgement of the first appellate court disclosed
that in the opinion of the learned Additional District Judge, the
original plaintiffs established their title and the original defendant
was in possession and was obliged to pay future mesne profits.
However, it finally dismissed the appeal filed by the plaintiffs and
allowed the appeal filed by the defendant. As a consequence, all
the reliefs prayed in the suit were disallowed. It is in such
circumstances plaintiffs have come up with these two appeals.
1. In S.A.No.209 of 2000, they assailed the judgment of the
first appellate court in A.S.No.62 of 1990
2. In S.A.No.561 of 2000, they assailed the judgment of the
first appellate court in A.S.No.72 of 1990.
9
Dr.VRKS,J
S.A.Nos.209&561 of 2000
A learned judge of this court on 24.07.2000 admitted
S.A.No.561 of 2000 on the following substantial questions of
law
• Whether the lower appellate Judge was right in reversing
the judgment in view of the observations made in the order
in C.R.P. No. 1265 of 1995, dated 11-8-1998, which are not
germane to the issue in the Suit?
• Whether the judgment of the lower appellate court is
correct in dismissing the plaintiffs’ suit for ejectment, when
the plaintiffs have established the title as found by the
appellate Court.
• Whether the view taken by the learned Appellate Judge
that the suit is not maintainable for ejectment of the
defendant on the basis of tenancy in the absence of
declaration of title and even after establishing the title of the
plaintiffs as an absolute owner, based on the registered
and proved documents, is correct?
• Whether the learned Appellate Judge is right in dismissing
the appeal for past and future profits, for the use and
occupation of the suit schedule property by the defendant
in view of satisfactorily proving the claim of the appellants.
10
Dr.VRKS,J
S.A.Nos.209&561 of 2000
A learned judge of this court on 07.09.2000 admitted
S.A.No.209 of 2000 on the following substantial questions of law.
• Whether the lower appellate Judge was right in reversing
the judgment in view of the observations made in the order
in C.R.P. No. 1265 of 1995, dated 11-8-1998, which are not
germane to the issue in the Suit?
• Whether the judgment of the lower appellate court is
correct in dismissing the plaintiffs’ suit for ejectment, when
the plaintiffs have established the title as found by the
appellate Court.
• Whether the view taken by the learned Appellate Judge
that the suit is not maintainable for ejectment of the
defendant on the basis of tenancy in the absence of
declaration of title and even after establishing the title of the
plaintiffs as an absolute owner, based on the registered
and proved documents, is correct?
9. Heard arguments of Sri Venkateswarlu Kolla, the learned
counsel for appellants and Sri P Gopal Das, the learned counsel
for respondent. Precedent is cited on both sides.
10. The forceful submission of the learned counsel for
appellants in these two appeals is that both the courts below
11
Dr.VRKS,J
S.A.Nos.209&561 of 2000
concurrently found the plaintiffs to be the title holders of the
subject matter property and both the courts concurrently found
that the defendant did not prove his title by adverse possession.
In that view of the matter, the appellate court erred in negativing
the claim of the plaintiffs and it ought to have upheld the trial court
judgment which granted eviction. Since the defendant is not in
rightful possession of the property, he must be directed to pay
future mesne profits as claimed in the suit. It is incorrect on part of
the learned first appellate court to solely base its decision relying
on the orders of this court in CRP.No.1265 of 1995. It is for these
reasons that the learned counsel prays for allowing both the
appeals and grant all the reliefs claimed in the suit.
11. As against it, learned counsel for respondent contented that
the question of possession is crucial and defendant/respondent
was admittedly in possession of the property and he did not gain
possession through plaintiff or his predecessors in title and
therefore filing a suit for eviction on a false claim of tenancy
should disentitle the appellants/plaintiffs from securing any relief.
Learned counsel prays for dismissal of both the appeals.
12
Dr.VRKS,J
S.A.Nos.209&561 of 2000
12. Fair trial principles normatively state that the case pleaded
is the case to be proved. A pleading without being proved or proof
led without there being supported pleadings is of no
consequence. In a suit it is the facts that shall be determined first
and the necessary law is to be applied there upon to such
established facts. In Allam Gangadhara Rao V. Gollapalli
Gangarao1, it was held that a party is expected and is bound to
prove the case as alleged by him and as covered by the issues
framed. One could not be allowed to succeed on a cause which
he has failed to set up. In M/s Trojan V. RM.N.N.Nagappa
Chettiar2, it was held that the decision of a case cannot be based
on grounds outside the pleadings of the parties and it is the case
pleaded that has to be found.
13. The pleaded case of the appellants/plaintiffs is that under
Ex.A12 registered sale deed dated 23.02.1983, they purchased a
vacant site and obtained possession of it from their predecessors
in title and thereafter raised two thatched huts and then in May,
1983 on a monthly rent of Rs.30/-, they let it out to
respondent/defendant. The specific defence set up by the
1
AIR 1968 AP 291
2
AIR 1953 SC 235
13
Dr.VRKS,J
S.A.Nos.209&561 of 2000
respondent/defendant in his written statement is that he admits
his own possession but stated that he did not obtain this
possession from the plaintiffs or their predecessors in title and
that the plaintiffs or their predecessors were not his landlords and
he was not a tenant under them. One would notice from these
pleadings that by the time the suit was filed, the respondent/
defendant was in possession of the property. It was the plaintiffs
who had come up with the suit for ejectment asserting that the
person in possession was their tenant since May 1983. Be it
noted that the trial court as well as the first Appellate Court
recorded a positive finding that the plaintiffs completely failed in
proving the tenancy alleged in the plaint. The outcome of such a
decision invariably show that the respondent/ defendant was in
possession of the plaint scheduled property much prior to the
plaintiffs purchasing this property on 23.02.1983 under Ex.A12.
Since the suit was laid for ejectment of tenant and since the
tenancy was not proved, it was legally possible to deny relief of
ejectment. However, the learned trial court took the view that the
plaintiffs having purchased the property under Ex.A12 registered
sale deed, they are the owners of the property and therefore they
are entitled to seek eviction of the respondent/ defendant. Thus,
14
Dr.VRKS,J
S.A.Nos.209&561 of 2000
the real question that comes up for consideration is whether the
plaintiffs, based on their general title, could seek recovery of
possession from the respondent/ defendant. At this juncture one
must notice that the defendant/ respondent even earlier to the
institution of the suit by the plaintiffs had filed a suit for injunction
claiming his right to continue in possession of the property and
questioned the legal title of the present appellants/plaintiffs.
Despite the fact that there was such denial of their title, the
plaintiffs did not choose to seek recovery of the title and did not
choose to seek recovery of possession on the premise that the
defendant in occupation of the property was not entitled to occupy
the property and he could be categorized as trespasser and
therefore they must be given back possession of this property.
They did not do it. They thought of doing it while the first appeal
was pending and their claim for amendment of plaint was allowed
by the first appellate court. However, that was set at naught in
revision by this court. It is also to be stated here that the trial court
without an issue being settled as to whether plaintiffs in the suit
were title holders it took liberty to declare their title. Thus, it
declared a relief which was not even prayed by the plaintiffs in the
suit. The learned trial court also did not settle an issue as to
15
Dr.VRKS,J
S.A.Nos.209&561 of 2000
whether the defendant before it perfected his title by adverse
possession. However, it returned a finding that the defendant
failed to prove title by prescription. Another crucial aspect is that
while according to plaintiffs, it was a private property and they
purchased it under Ex.A12 sale deed; the defence set out
questioned the correctness of it stating that it was poramboke
which he and others occupied. In such circumstances, an issue
as to whether it was a private land or poramboke was required to
be framed and considered. Without doing that solely based on
Ex.A12 the trial court rendered its judgment. Thus, without
framing necessary issues, it recorded crucial findings and thus
misdirected itself in granting the relief prayed by the plaintiffs.
14. In Biswanath Agarwalla V. Sabitri Bera3, their Lordships
of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India were pleased to say that if
the person in possession is not a tenant or a licensee and if he
fails to show any other right to continue in possession he could be
called as a trespasser. To sue against a trespasser, the cause of
action is different and the court fees to be paid is different.
Plaintiffs must file a suit having regard to the cause of action
thereof. Considering the fact situation available in that lis before
3
(2009) 15 SCC 693
16
Dr.VRKS,J
S.A.Nos.209&561 of 2000
their Lordships in paragraph No.29, their Lordships were pleased
to direct the plaintiffs to file an application for grant of leave to
amend their plaint so as to enable them to pray for a decree for
eviction of the defendant on the ground that he is a trespasser. In
the case at hand, the claim for amendment of plaint and to add
the relief of declaration of title having been negatived by this court
for the reasons mentioned in CRP No.1265 of 1995 and since the
same became final, the learned first Appellate Court rightly
concluded that the original plaintiffs were not entitled to seek
ejection of original defendant. This court finds no error in that. It
was never the case of appellants/plaintiffs that the
respondent/defendant is a trespasser. The question whether the
land was private property or poramboke came before the first
appellate court also. As one would notice from Paragraph No.12
of the impugned judgment of the learned first appellate court an
FMB was shown to the court and by looking at it a finding was
recorded that land in S.No.91/B was private land. In this regard,
the serious lapse is that the said FMB was not part of the
evidence before the trial court and was not part of the additional
evidence received by the first appellate court. Thus, the first
appellate court considered material that not part of the evidence
17
Dr.VRKS,J
S.A.Nos.209&561 of 2000
and held that property belonged to plaintiffs. That certainly
caused grave prejudice to the respondent/ defendant. Therefore,
the argument of the learned counsel for appellants that there is
title vested with them cannot be countenanced as long as the
nature of the property was not decided in accordance with law. It
deserves a mention here that much prior to plaintiffs filing the suit
the defendant/respondent were making representations to the
District Collector as per Ex.B2 and B3 to grant pattas to them.
Therefore, there was serious title dispute. In these circumstances,
the appellants/plaintiffs are not entitled to any of the reliefs prayed
in the suit. There are no merits in these appeals. Points are
answered against the appellants.
15. In the result, both the appeals are dismissed.
As a sequel, miscellaneous applications, pending, if any,
shall stand closed.
________________________
Dr. V.R.K.KRUPA SAGAR, J
Date: 28.02.2025
Dvs
18
Dr.VRKS,J
S.A.Nos.209&561 of 2000
pTHE HON’BLE JUSTICE Dr. V.R.K.KRUPA SAGAR
SECOND APPEAL Nos. 209 and 561 of 2000
Date: 28.02.2025
Dvs
[ad_1]
Source link