Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 372 (AP)

Gummadi Veeraiah v. Talapati Chennaiah

2025-02-28

V.R.K.KRUPA SAGAR

body2025
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 got 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. 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. 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. 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 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 of 1990. The defendant aggrieved by the order of eviction preferred A.S.No.62 of 1990. 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 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 court 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. 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. 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. 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? 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 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. 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 Gangarao, [ AIR 1968 AP 291 ], 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 Chettiar, [ AIR 1953 SC 235 ], 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 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. 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, 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 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. 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 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 Bera , [ (2009) 15 SCC 693 ], 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 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. 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 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.