Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2001 DIGILAW 1231 (AP)

Haribandhu Koro v. Pinninti kesamma

2001-10-09

L.NARASIMHA REDDY

body2001
L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J. ( 1 ) THIS revision is filed by the plaintiff in S. C. No. 5 of 1988 on the file of the District Munsif, Sompeta. ( 2 ) THE suit was filed for recovery of an amount of Rs. 733/- from the respondents/ defendants herein, being the lease amount for the land in S. No. 436/41 in pattano. 1033 of Maghlaypeta, Srikakulam District, ad measuring Ac. 0. 32 cents. It was the contention of the petitioners that they are the owners of the land and the same was leased in favour of the respondents. When the respondents failed to pay the lease amount, they filed O. S. No. 327 of 1972 on the file of the District Munsif, Sompeta which resulted in ex parte decree dated 31. 7. 1973. It was further stated that the respondents filed an application for setting aside the ex parte decree with an application to condone the delay and the same was dismissed and the C. M. A. filed against the judgment was also dismissed, thereby the decree became final The present suit in s. C. No. 5 of 1988 was filed for recovery of rents for subsequent periods. ( 3 ) THE respondents resisted the suit by stating that the petitioners have no rights over the land and that they failed to establish the relationship of landlord and tenant. ( 4 ) BEFORE the trial Court, PW1 was examined on behalf of the petitioners/ plaintiffs and Exs. A. l to A. 6 were marked. DWs. l to 3 were examined on behalf of the defendants and no documents were marked on their behalf. ( 5 ) ON the basis of the evidence available on record, the trial Court by the judgment dated 29. 3. 1995 dismissed the suit. Aggrieved thereby, the present revision is filed. ( 6 ) SRI Balasubramanyam, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the trial Court erred in taking a view that the petitioners have failed to establish that there existed landlord and tenant relationship between the them and the respondents. He further submits that in view of the decree in o. S. No. 327 of 1972, the finding in the present suit cannot be sustained since the answers with regard to the remaining points was based on the finding in O. S. No. 327/ 1972 finding. He further submits that in view of the decree in o. S. No. 327 of 1972, the finding in the present suit cannot be sustained since the answers with regard to the remaining points was based on the finding in O. S. No. 327/ 1972 finding. On the other hand, Sri A. Sri ganesh appearing for Sri P. B. Vijay Kumar submits that the decree in O. S. No. 327 of 1972 remained unexecuted and that the finding in the previous suit does not entitle the petitioners to claim the rents for the subsequent period. ( 7 ) IT is to be seen that the trial Court extensively discussed the point relating to the existence of landlord and tenant relationship between the petitioners and the respondents. The decree in O. S. No. 327 of 1972 was marked as Ex:a. 1 and the plaint therein was marked as Ex:a. 3. It was not in dispute that the petitioners and respondents are parties to the decree in O. S. No. 327/ 1972 and that it has become final. The grant of relief in O. S. No. 327 of 1972 was undoubtedly on the premise that the respondents are tenants of the petitioners, therefore the decree in O. S. No. 327 of 1972 resulted in the Court accepting the position that the respondents are the tenants of the petitioners and that the respondents are liable to pay the rent claimed. ( 8 ) THE contention of the learned counsel for the respondents that non- execution of the said decree in that suit virtually extinguished the rights of the petitioners cannot be accepted. The reason is that non-execution of the decree would at the most disentitle the petitioners from realising the amounts covered by the decree. The recognition of relationship of landlord and tenant cannot be extinguished on account of non-execution of the decree. ( 9 ) UNFORTUNATELY, the trial Court had ignored the decree on a very fragile and irrelevant grounds. It is relevant to extract the reasons furnished by the trial Court in ignoring the decree in O. S. No. 327 of 1972: "since the plaintiffs came forward that the 1st defendant executed a yearly Mutchilaka on 2. 4. ( 9 ) UNFORTUNATELY, the trial Court had ignored the decree on a very fragile and irrelevant grounds. It is relevant to extract the reasons furnished by the trial Court in ignoring the decree in O. S. No. 327 of 1972: "since the plaintiffs came forward that the 1st defendant executed a yearly Mutchilaka on 2. 4. 1978, the decree obtained in o. S. No. 327 of 1972 cannot have any role to play any further against these defendants in this suit since the alleged lease covered by the alleged 1969 lease deed came to an end with the alleged execution of the Mutchilaka in 1978. " such a reasoning just cannot be accepted. The circumstances under which a decree or outcome of it could have been extinguished are i) by getting the decree set aside or ii) the respondents establishing that subsequent to the decree a total different relationship came into existence. None of these things were neither pleaded or established. Therefore, the view taken by the trial court cannot be accepted. Strangely, for the purpose of ignoring the decree in O. S. No. 327 of 1972, the trial Court relied on a document dated 2. 4. 1978 and at the same time refused to take that very document dated 2. 4. 1978 into account to come to a conclusion that the terms of the lease were contained in it. Such contradictory approach in fact vitiated the finding. On account of the finding arrived at by it, the trial Court did not discuss the quantum of rents for the subsequent years or the entitlement of the rent. ( 10 ) FOR the reasons stated above, the judgment and decree of the trial Court are set aside and the matter is remanded to the trial Court for fresh adjudication. The Court below shall proceed on the basis that the relationship of landlord and tenant existed and enquire as to the quantum and entitlement of the rents. The C. R. P, is accordingly allowed. The Court below is directed to dispose of the suit as early as possible not later than three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No order as to costs.