CRP/6226/2006 of Vallicharla Venu Gopal Vs Gopu Sesikanth on 29 December 2006

1. AIR 1954 Travencore-Cochin 152

2. 1961 Calcutta 359

3.1966 ALD 280

4. AIR 1940 Patna 683

5. AIR 2007 AP 137

6. AIR 1959 AP 272

7. AIR 1954 SC 355

8. AIR 1967 Supreme Court 341

10. 2010 (5) Supreme Court Cases 104

11. 2008 (15) Supreme Court Cases 673

12. 1994 (6) Supreme Court Cases 117

13. 2005 (4) Andhra Law Times 235

14. 2002 (8) Supreme Court Cases 400

15. AIR 1954 Travancore-Cochin 152

16[. ] AIR 1961 Calcutta 359

17. 1966 Andhra Law Times 280

18. AIR 1940 Patna 683

19. AIR 1954 Supreme Court 355

20. AIR 1967 Supreme Court 34121. (2004) 8 Supreme Court Cases 588

24. 2005 (4) Andhra Law Times 235

25. (2002) 8 Supreme Court Cases 400

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. RAJASHEKER REDDY

Civil Revision Petition Nos.2628, 2650 and 6226 of 2006

--Date: 102013

C.R.P.No.2628 of 2006

Between:

Kamisetti Krishna and 11 others

.. Petitioners

AND

Kanchumarthi Venkata Ramanamma and 5 others

.. Respondents

C.R.P.No.2650 of 2006

Between:Kamisetti Subba Rao and 7 others

.. Petitioners

AND

Kanchumarthi Venkata Ramanamma and 5 others

.. Respondents

C.R.P.No.6227 of 2006

Between:

Nakka Venkata Rao

.. Petitioners

AND

Kanchumarthi Venkata Ramanamma and 5 others

.. Respondents

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. RAJASHEKER REDDY

Civil Revision Petition Nos.2628, 2650 and 6226 of 2006COMMON ORDER:

Since common questions of fact and law are involved inthese three Civil Revision Petitions, they are being disposed of bythis common order.

2. The C.R.P.No.2628 of 2006 is directed against the order dated 21-12-2005 in A.T.A.No.80 of 2000 passed by the AppellateAuthority under the A.P. (Andhra Area) Tenancy Act-cum-PrincipalDistrict Judge, East Godavari at Rajahmundry, whereby andwhereunder the appeal was dismissed confirming the order dated24-05-2000 in A.T.C.No.22 of 1993 passed by the Special Officerunder Andhra Tenancy Act-cum-Principal Junior Civil Judge,Rajahmundry.

3. The C.R.P.No.2650 of 2006 is directed against the orderdated 21-12-2005 in A.T.A.No.79 of 2000 passed by the AppellateAuthority under the A.P. (Andhra Area) Tenancy Act-cum-PrincipalDistrict Judge, East Godavari at Rajahmundry, whereby andwhereunder the appeal was dismissed confirming the order dated24-05-2000 in A.T.C.No.23 of 1993 passed by the Special Officerunder Andhra Tenancy Act-cum-Principal Junior Civil Judge,Rajahmundry.

4. The C.R.P.No.6227 of 2006 is directed against the orderdated 14-09-2006 in A.T.A.No.30 of 2005 passed by the AppellateAuthority under the A.P. (Andhra Area) Tenancy Act-cum-PrincipalDistrict Judge, East Godavari at Rajahmundry, whereby andwhereunder the appeal was dismissed confirming the order dated15-06-2005 in A.T.C.No.45 of 1997 passed by the Special Officerunder Andhra Tenancy Act-cum-Principal Junior Civil Judge,Rajahmundry.

5. The brief facts, which are necessary for disposal of therevision petitions, are that the petition schedule lands originallybelonged to Kanchumarthi Seeta Ramachandra Rao, who is father

of Pardhasaradhi, Venkata Subba Rao and VenkataSeetharamarao, were leased out by late Sri Kandula NarasimhaRao to the forefathers of the petitioners about 70 or 80 years backfor cultivation. The forefathers and later the fathers of thepetitioners raised mango trees in the dry lands. After the death ofKanchumarthi Seeta Ramachandra Rao, his sons, Pardhasaradhi,Venkata Seetharama Rao and Venkata Subba Rao inherited theschedule lands, which were managed by late Pardhasaradhi. Venkata Subba Rao died on 29-11-1984 and his 1/3[rd] share fell toR-1 and R-2 by virtue of Will executed by him. VenkataSeetharamarao died on 03-12-1987 and his share was inherited byhis adopted son Venkata Seetha Ramachandra Rao- R-3. Duringthe life time of Pardhasaradhi, he used to realize the rents fromthe forefathers and fathers of the petitioners and later on from thepetitioners. After the death of Pardhasaradhi, the 1[st] respondenthas been collecting the rents from the petitioners and thepetitioners have been raising dry crops in dry lands in betweenmango trees and paddy crop in the wet lands. The rent wasenhanced from time to time for the last 5 years and the petitionershave been paying the annual rent of Rs.14,000/-. In the year 1990some Mandal Sattiah and others tried to occupy the schedulelands and other lands by force and when the cultivating tenantsexpressed their apprehension that they could not resist their force,the 1[st] respondent and some of the petitioners filed O.S.No.168 of1990 on the file of Subordinate Judge’s Court, Rajahmundry forpermanent injunction, wherein the 1[st] respondent stated that theplaintiffs therein and their forefathers have been in continuouspossession and enjoyment of the lands as cultivating tenants andthe said lands were never under the personal cultivation of therespondents or their predecessors-in-interest. When the petitioners approached the 1[st] respondent to pay the rent, shedemanded for enhancement of rent to Rs.25,000/- from 1992-1993and refused to receive the rent of Rs.14,000/-. Despite severalapproaches by the petitioners, the 1[st] respondent was adamant. When the petitioners sent Rs.14,000/- by banker’s cheque dated14-05-1993 in favour of the 1[st] respondent, she returned the samewith a registered notice dated 18-05-1993 with false allegationsthat the petitioners are not tenants. The schedule lands aregarden lands and they used to sell the usufructs by way ofremuneration and they used to pay 1/3[rd] of realization to thewatchman appointed by the husband and brothers of the 1[st]respondent. When the State Government tried to take thepossession of the lands as excess lands to be surrendered underthe Land Ceiling Act, the 5[th] petitioner and others filed LRA 133 of1992 on the file of Land Reforms Appellate Tribunal, Kakinadaquestioning the action of the Government in taking possession ofthe lands under their cultivation and obtained stay order. All thevillagers of Nidigatla Gadala and Madhurapudi are aware that thepetitioners are cultivating tenants to the schedule lands.

6. The 2[nd] respondent filed his counter stating that thepetitioners are not cultivating tenants to the schedule lands, whichare garden lands. The petitioners are not in possession of theschedule land at any time and there is no landlady and tenantrelationship between the respondents and the petitioners. Thepayment of rent is false. The petitioners and others played fraudon the 1[st] respondent in the absence of the 2[nd] respondent, who ismanaging and looking after the sale of usufructs of the gardens inthe schedule lands. The petitioners procured her signatures onthe plaint and other pleadings in O.S.No168 of 1990. The pleadings in the said suit in the name of the 1[st] respondent are nottrue, valid and binding on the respondents. The steps are beingtaken to nullify the fraudulent proceedings. She further contendedthat the 1[st] respondent never demanded for enhancement of rent. The respondents are exclusively enjoying the schedule gardenlands. The correspondence exchanged between the petitionersand respondents show falsity of the petitioners’ claim. At no pointof time, petitioners cultivated the schedule lands and raisedcrops. The petition is not maintainable since all necessary partiesare not impleaded as respondents. This petition, if filed withmalafide intention to give entry into the lands of the respondentsunder the guise of injunction order.

7. The 3[rd] respondent also filed counter stating that as perpreliminary decree in O.S.No.189 of 1987 on the file ofSubordinate Judge's Court, Rajahmundry, the petition schedulelands and other lands are to be partitioned in three equal sharesand one such share to be added to this respondent and theremaining two shares to the respondents 1 and 2. In the saiddecree, it was directed that the 2[nd] respondent to render accountto this respondent for Rs.6,283-29 ps. for the year 1985-96 andfurther directed the respondents 1 and 2 to render account forfuture profits i.e., from 1986-87 onwards. The final decreeproceedings are pending in the above suit. This respondent is aminor. His father Venkata Seetharama Rao died in 1987 fromwhich time, the respondents 1 and 2 alone have been managingthe petition schedule lands. The dispute in question in this petitionis in the personal knowledge of the respondents 1 and 2 and thisrespondent has no knowledge about the same. Subject to therights of this respondent in decree in O.S.No.189 of 1987 accounts of the income in the schedule lands to be rendered by therespondents 1 and 2, this respondent abides by the decision of thecourt.

8. The trial Court dismissed A.T.C.No.22 of 1993,A.T.C.No.23 of 1993 and A.T.C.No.45 of 1997 respectively on theground that the petitioners failed to establish that there is landlordand tenant relationship between the petitioners and therespondents and there is no useful information elicited from theevidence of the respondents witnesses to prove that there islandlord and tenant relationship and that mere possession of theproperty recently by the petitioners does not give any right toclaim the petitioners as tenants and that the petitioners, who arelegal heirs of Kamisetti Subbanna and Venkata Rao, cannot getany tenancy rights over the schedule lands. Aggrieved by thecommon order dated 24-05-2000 in A.T.C.No.22 of 1993 andA.T.C.No.23 of 1993, the petitioners filed A.T.A.No.80 of 2000 andA.T.A.No.79 of 2000 respectively and also aggrieved by the orderdated 15-06-2005 passed in A.T.C.No.45 of 1997, the revisionpetitioners herein filed A.T.A.No.30 of 2005 before the AppellateAuthority-cum-Principal District Judge, East Godavari District atRajahmundry. The Appellate Court dismissed the said appealsconfirming the order of the Special Officer under the Authority.Challenging the said orders, the present Civil Revision Petitionshave been filed.

9. Sri N. Vijay, learned counsel for the petitioners contendedthat the Courts below have not properly considered the admissionsmade by the 1[st] respondent, who is plaintiff in O.S.No.168 of1990. He contends that the 1[st] respondent, who is plaintiff inO.S.No.168 of 1990 clearly admitted that the revision petitionersare the tenants in respect of suit schedule premises and that when once the said admissions were made in the pleadings, the samehave to be taken into consideration and the same were also notretracted. As such, the admissions have to be taken and therevision petitioners should have been declared as permanenttenants under Section 6 of the Act. He also contends that theevidence of PWs.5 and 6 V. Ramakrishna Bhaskara Rao andNakka Kondala Rao has not been considered properly. Hecontends that PW.6, who is plaintiff No.10 in O.S.No.168 of 1990,was not cross-examined and his chief examination goesunchallenged, which can be the basis for declaring the revisionpetitioners as tenants. He also contended that Venkat Rao who isplaintiff No.9 in O.S.No.168 of 1990 is not examined and that thetwo affidavits were marked as Exs.B.17 and B.18 in spite ofobjections being raised. He also contended that evidence ofPW.7, who is petitioner No.1 in A.T.C.No.23 of 1993, was notproperly considered. He also contends that O.S.No.89 of 1996filed R.5 against wife of Venkata Rao is also dismissed. He alsocontended that ExB.17 could not have been marked as N. VenkataRao is not alive. He contends that the Appellate Court has notconsidered other evidence except the effect of admissions inO.S.No.168 of 1990. He also contended that as per the provisionsunder Order VI Rule 4 CPC, the particulars regarding dates andother aspects have to be given, but in the present case no suchparticulars are given. He also contends that in the counter filed bythe respondent-landlord, there is a bare denial and no particularsabout the fraud were given. Though plea of fraud is taken, there isnothing stated in evidence about the fraud pleaded. He alsocontends that once fraud is pleaded on one aspect, another fraudcannot be proved. In support of his contentions, he placedreliance in judgments in Velu Pillai Padakalingam v.

Paramanandam Yesudasan[[1]],A.E.G. Garapiet v. A.Y.Derderian[[2]],The Commissioner, Hindu Religious and CharitalEndowments, Hyderabad[[3]],Karnidan Sarda and another v.Sailaja Kanta Mitra[[4]],Peddavandla Narayanamma v.Peddasani Venkata Reddy and others[[5]],Jayalakshmidevamma v. Janardhan Reddy[[6]],Nathoo Lal v.Durga Prasad[[7]],Basanth Singh v. Janki Singh and others[[8]].In respect of the plea of fraud, he placed reliance on A.C.Ananthaswamy and others v. Boraiah[[9]],Shanti Budhiya VestaPatel and others[[10]],Ranganayakamma and another v. K.S.Prakash and others[[11]]and Bijendranath Srivastava v. MayankSrivastava and others[[12]].

10. On the other hand, Sri P. Venugopal, learned counsel forthe respondents, contends that the petitioners are not cultivatingtenants as per Section 2 (c) of the A.P. (Andhra Area) TenancyAct, 1956 and they are only intermediaries. He contends that asthe lands are only orchards, as per Section 18 (1) (b) of the Act,the Act has no application to the petition schedule lands. He alsocontends that the pleadings in petitions filed under Section 16 ofthe Act by the petitioners are vague wherein at para-3 the revisionpetitioners stated that mango trees are in existence and in para-5,they stated that there are dry crops in the suit schedule lands. Hecontended that there are inconsistencies in the pleadings. Hecontended that when once it is garden, as per Section 18 (1) (b) ofthe Act, the Act has no application. He contended that no revenuerecords are filed to prove the tenancy except giving some oral

statements. He further contended that as it is a case of tenantsand the fathers and forefathers of the revision petitioners arecontinuing as tenants, they should have filed some revenuerecords to establish the same, but no such revenue record wasfiled. He further contended that tenancy should be proved at leastby producing revenue records. In support of this contention, herelied on in Namburi Bangarraju v. Indukuri Satyanarayanaraju and others[[13]].He contends that the petitioners have toestablish their own case and not depend on the weakness of therespondents even when the respondents have taken inconsistentin their pleadings. It is for the petitioners to prove that they arecultivating tenants and there is no clinching evidence to prove thatthe petitioners are tenants. He also contends that proceedings incivil courts cannot be relied upon, while dealing with the mattersunder special enactments. He further contended that therespondents have clearly shown under what circumstancesadmissions were made in O.S.No.168 of 1990 and basing on suchadmissions, the revision petitioners cannot ask for declaring themas tenants without leading any independent evidence. In whatcircumstances O.S.No.168 of 1990 was filed was explained by therespondents and both the Courts below accepted the same, and assuch, no interference is called for in this revision petitions. Hecontends that the revisional jurisdiction under Article 227 of theConstitution of India can be exercised only for correcting patenterrors and evidence cannot be re-appreciated and came to adifferent conclusion. He also contends that all errors cannot becorrected under Article 227 of the Constitution of India as therevisional jurisdiction under Article 227 is very limited. He reliedon the judgment reported in Essen Deinki v. Rajiv Kumar[[14]].

11. On the other hand, in reply to the arguments of the learnedcounsel for the respondents, the learned counsel for the revisionpetitioners contends that there is no pleading as the land fallsunder Section 18 (1) (b) of the Act and that AdvocateCommissioner’s report says that dry and wet crops form part ofsuit schedule fields. He contended that when once thejurisdictional fact is not pleaded, the same cannot be raised. Hecontends that after the pleadings, the party should lead evidenceonly in respect of that pleadings but not otherwise. He alsocontends that the respondents have taken different stand atdifferent times and that in O.S.No.168 of 1990, the respondentshave taken the plea that the revision petitioners are tenants and inanother suit filed, they have taken plea that the revision petitionersare trespassers and in the present proceedings, they have taken aplea that they are only watchman. He also contends that theadmission is best piece of evidence. Neither the evidence ofRW.1, RW.5 nor the evidence of RW.6 any way stated about thefraud.

12. In view of the rival contentions, the issues that fall forconsideration in this revision petition are,-

1) Whether the petitioners are cultivating tenants in theschedule lands, if so, whether they are entitled fordeclaration under Section 16 of the Act;schedule lands, if so, whether they are entitled fordeclaration under Section 16 of the Act;

2) Whether they are entitled for consequential relief ofperpetual injunction.perpetual injunction.

13. The revision petitioners mainly relied on the admissionsmade by the 1[st] respondent in the plaint in O.S.No.168 of 1990 onthe file of Subordinate Judge's Court, Rajahmundry. It was filed bythe 1[st] respondent and the revision petitioners against the thirdparties who occupied the lands of the respondents' family. Ex.A.4

is the certified copy of plaint, which was filed in respect ofAc.117.26 cents in Nidigatla village, Ac.14.08 cents in Gadalavillage and Ac.6.30 cents in Madurapudi village of KorukondaMandal. The said suit was filed for permanent injunctionrestraining the defendants therein from interfering with theplaintiffs' possession and enjoyment of the plaint scheduleproperties. In the plaint, it was stated that the plaintiffs thereinhave been in possession and cultivation of those lands by way ofthe 1[st] plaintiff, who is 1[st] respondent herein, leasing out the sameto the other plaintiffs, who are petitioners herein. The respondentshave explained the admission and the evidence of RW.1 show inwhat circumstances admissions were made and how it is notbinding. RW.1 deposed that except the 3[rd] petitioner, she doesnot know the other petitioners and that she knows Subba Rao aswatchman on salary basis and that she never leased out thepetition schedule property to the petitioners and that the lands arenot fit for cultivation. She says that about five or eight years agoher watchman Subba Rao informed her that Nexalites highhandedly were trying to encroach into the schedule land, and atthat time she was alone and her daughter who is the 2[nd]respondent was in the States and that she told the watchman tomeet her advocate RW.6 and that the watchman brought someEnglish typed papers and ask her to sign those papers and thatwhen she expressed that she cannot understand or read English,Subba Rao informed her that the advocate has signed thosepapers. She says that nobody read out the contents to her andthat she has signed in those papers and that she did not knowcontents of the typed papers on which Subba Rao obtained hersignatures and that after obtaining her signatures Subba Rao tookthose papers to her advocate for filing case for the purpose of preventing of Naxalites entering into the lands. She categoricallysays that she did not instruct or inform her advocate RW.6 or anyother person that the petitioners are their tenants. She furthersays that after the 2[nd] respondent returned from America, RW.1informed her about Subba Rao collecting her signatures on typedEnglish papers on the pretext of preventing Nexalites fromentering into lands and that thereupon the 2[nd] respondent enquiredRW.6 and came to know about mentioning of the petitioners astenants in the schedule lands in those papers and that thereafter,she filed a petition in the Civil Court stating that she did notvoluntarily admit the petitioners as tenants and also explainingcircumstances in which she signed in those papers. RW.1 saysthat she cannot read or write English and that she only learntsigning in English. In cross-examination, she deposed that shedoes not know whether her application to withdraw from the suitdenying the contents of the plaint, was dismissed.

14. RW.4 is the registered pleader's clerk under RW.6. Hedeposed that RW.1 did not come to their office for the purpose offiling O.S.No.168 of 1990 and that her signatures were taken in theplaint at her house. He says that the 2[nd] petitioner and two orthree others of Kamisetti people went to RW.1's house andobtained her signatures. He says that he also accompanied themand that neither himself nor other persons read out contents of theplaint nor RW.1 read the contents of the plaint. He says that the2[nd] petitioner and others came, got drafted the plaint and the suitwas filed as out of order hurriedly and ad-interim injunction orderwas obtained.

15. RW.6, who was a practicing advocate at Rajahmundrysince 1958 and who was the counsel for the 1[st] respondent’s family in several litigations, deposed that he drafted Ex.A.4-plaintin O.S.No.168 of 1990 on the instructions of three or four plaintiffsout of plaintiffs 3 to 12 in the suit. He stated that RW.1, who isplaintiff in O.S.No.168 of 1990, never gave any instructions in thatmatter and that the 2[nd] respondent was giving instructions relatingto their affairs after the death of Partha Saradi. The 2[nd] respondentas RW.5 says that she was out of India when the suit O.S.No.168of 1990 was filed. RW.6 further states that his clerk RW.4 wentand obtained signatures of RW.1 in the plaint and that as soon asthe tenancy claim was made by the plaintiffs 2 to 13 and the samewas denied by the 1[st] plaintiff in that suit (RW.1), he reported noinstructions for the plaintiffs 2 to 13 and filed an application onbehalf of the 1[st] plaintiff to transpose plaintiffs 2 to 13 asdefendants in that suit and that the said application was dismissedadvising separate steps have to be taken. He further stated thathe believed the version of those persons who gave instructions tohim for drafting Ex.A.4 plaint and drafted the same. RW.6 in hiscross-examination, he categorically says that he prepared theplaint in O.S.No.168 of 1990 without specific instructions of RW.1. He says that the relevant papers were brought by three or fourpeople out of the plaintiffs 3 to 13 in O.S.No.168 of 1990 and thesaid persons followed the 2[nd] respondent Subba Lakshmi to hisoffice and that Subba Lakshmi used to give instructions in some ofthe occasions earlier to the said suit. He stated that becausethose persons accompanied Subba Lakshmi on earlier occasion,RW.6 believed the representations of the persons out of the otherplaintiff in O.S.No.168 of 1990 and prepared Ex.A.4 plaint therein.

The 1[st] respondent, apart from examining herself as RW.1,examined her counsel RW.6 and pleader’s clerk RW.4 to explain

the circumstances under which her signatures came on the plaintin O.S.No.168 of 1990. RW.6 who is responsible advocate alsodeposed that Ex.A.4 was prepared without instructions fromRW.1. Both the Courts below have relied on evidence of RW.1, 4and 6 and after assessing their evidence with reference to theattending circumstances prevailing during the time of filing ofO.S.No.168 of 1990, held that in order to save those lands fromthe occupation of Raithu Cooli Sangham backed by Naxalites, the1[st] respondent and other petitioners joined together and cameforward with the theory of tenancy in favour of the plaintiffs 2 to 13therein for the first time and hurriedly filed the plaint as out oforder and obtained ex parte interim injunction. The Courts belowhave examined those admissions and found that they were madein those circumstances in order to protect the lands from the thirdparties. The Courts below found that the said solitary averment inEx.A.4 cannot clothe the revision petitioners with any tenancyrights in the petition schedule lands. The Courts below also foundthat at no point of time the names of the petitioners were shown inthe revenue records or the land ceiling declarations andverification reports as tenants in occupation and cultivation of theschedule lands and it is only for the first time their names croppedup as tenants in the plaint filed in O.S.No.168 of 1990, which weremade by the 1[st] respondent only under those circumstances. Butthat cannot be taken advantage as admission for the purpose ofcoming to a conclusion that the revision petitioners are tenants. Therefore, the Courts below have not accepted the case of therespondents and observed that the said admissions are made onlyin the circumstances prevailing and the same cannot be usedagainst the respondents. The Courts below also came to theconclusion that the same is not binding on the 2[nd] respondent and the 3[rd] respondent, who are not parties to Ex.A.4.

16. In the present case, the Courts below, considering theevidence of the revision petitioners-PWs.1 to 7 and the evidenceof RWs.1 to 7, came to the conclusion that except the averment inEx.A.4 that the revision petitioners are tenants, no evidence isproduced by the revision petitioners to show that they are tenantsand the evidence adduced by the revision petitioners also does notsupport the case of the revision petitioners that they arepermanent tenants. Both the Courts below basing on the severaljudgments and by scrutinizing the evidence held that theadmissions made by the 1[st] respondent in the plaint in O.S.No.168of 1990-Ex.A.4 is not voluntary one and her signature on the plaintand other documents in O.S.No.168 of 1990 were obtained whenher daughter was out of India and she was alone in the house. TheCourts below also found that the petitioners have to establish theircase by independent evidence that there is no landlord and tenantrelationship between them and the respondents. The Courtsbelow, after appreciating the evidence found that the petitionershave not established that there is landlord and tenant relationshipand there is no useful information elicited from the evidence of therespondents witnesses to prove that there is landlord and tenantrelationship to prove the said facts.

17. Learned counsel for the revision petitioners, in support ofhis contention with regard to effect of non-examination of PW.6,relied on various precedents in Velu Pillai Padakalingam v.Paramanandam Yesudasam[[15]]A.E.G. Carapiet v. A.Y.Derderian[[16]], The Commissioner, Hindu Religious andCharitable Endowments, Hyderabad v. MudlamuriAyyavurayya[[17]], Karnidan Sarda and another v. Sailaja Kanta

Mitra[[18]]to contend that since PW.6 was not cross-examined, thesame should be taken as unchallenged evidence. All thedecisions state that any witness is not cross-examined on anyaspect by either side, his evidence goes unchallenged and thesame has to be believed. There is no quarrel regarding the saidprinciple. But, in the present case, except the oral evidence, norevenue records were produced showing that the revisionpetitioners or the predecessors-in-title or the ancestors arepermanent tenants. As such, the evidence of PW.6 alone cannotbe a ground to declare the revision petitioners as permanenttenants. The Courts below have found that they have not adducedsufficient evidence for declaring them as permanent tenants. Thatbeing a question of fact, whether the evidence is sufficient or notcannot be a ground to reassess or hold that the evidence is notsufficient by reappreciating the evidence in these revisions.

18. In Nathoo Lal v. Durga Prasad[[19]], the SupremeCourt held that what is admitted by a party to be true must bepresumed to be true unless the contrary is shown. But, in thepresent case, the admission made by the 1[st] respondent in Ex.A.4are clearly explained by leading evidence under whatcircumstances the admissions were made and the Courts belowfound that the same can be held against the respondents in view ofthe circumstances in which it was made. As such, this decisionhas no application to the facts of the case.

19. In Basanth Singh v. Janki Sing and others[[20]],the Apex Court held that under Indian law, an admission made bya party in a plaint signed and verified by him may be used asevidence against him in other suits. In other suits, this admissioncannot be regarded as conclusive, and it is open to the party to show that it is not true. This decision supports the case of therespondents since the respondents had let in evidence and shownthat the admission made by the 1[st] respondent in Ex.A.4 is nottrue and the same was believed by the Courts below, which is aquestion of fact and the same cannot also be interfered with inexercise of revisional jurisdiction by appreciating the evidence.20. I n A.C. Ananthaswamy and others v.

Boraiah[[21]],the Apex Court held as under:

".......To prove fraud, it must be proved that representationmade was false to the knowledge of the party making suchrepresentation or that the party could have no reasonablebelief that it was true. The level of proof required in suchcases is extremely higher. An ambiguous statement cannotper se make the representor guilty of fraud. To prove a caseof fraud, it must be proved that the representation made wasfalse to the knowledge of the party making suchrepresentation. ...."

21. In the present case, the Courts below, onassessing the evidence of the respondents, held that theadmission was made under certain circumstances and found thesame to be not true. It is also a question of fact, which cannot beinterfered with. As such, the decision cited above also has noapplication to the facts of the present case.22. In Shanti Budhiya Vesta Patel and others v.

Nirmala Jayaprakash Tiwari and others[[22]]

,theApex

Court held as follows:

".... It is a plain and basic rule of pleadings that in order tomake out a case of fraud or coercion, there must be anexpress allegation of coercion or fraud, and (b) all the materialfacts in support of such allegations must be laid out in full andwith a high degree of precision. In other words, if coercion orfraud is alleged, it must be set out with full particulars....."

23. In the present case, the facts are different from the facts before the Supreme Court. It is a case where under specialcircumstances, 1[st] respondent signed Ex.A.4 and through theevidence, she proved that the admission made is not true. Assuch, this decision has no application to the present case.

24. In Bijendra Nath Srivastava v. Mayank Srivastava and others[[23]], the Apex Court held as follows:

"........ This is in consonance with the rule that a charge offraud must be substantially proved as laid and that when onekind of fraud is charged, another kind of fraud cannot, uponthe failure of proof, be substituted for it. The same is true forthe charge of misconduct. This means under Order 6 Rule 4CPC particulars have to be furnished of the plea of fraud ormisconduct raised in accordance with Order 6 Rule 2 CPCand it is not permissible to introduce by way of particulars aplea of fraud or misconduct other than that raised in thepleadings......"

In view of the evidence led by the respondents in the presentcase, the Courts below came to the conclusion that the admissionmade by the respondents is not true and except the admission,there is no independent evidence or revenue record to show thatthe petitioners are continuing as tenants. As such, this decisionhas no application to the present case.

25. In Namburi Bangaraju v. Indukuri Satyanarayanaraju and others[[24]], the Apex Court held as follows:

"......The petition schedule property is situated in adjoiningvillage where revenue records are maintained meticulously. Ifreally the land was under possession of the petitioner and hisfather for the past half a century, it would certainly have beenreflected in one category of the revenue records or the other. The petitioner did not file any such records. He tried to coverup his lapse at the appellate stage by filing Ex.A.2, acertificate issued by the Secretary, Gram Panchayat to theeffect that the land is part of Gramakantam (village site) andthat the pattadar pass books are not issued for such land. The appellate Court had examined the same and took theview that even if the pattadar pass books cannot be issued forsuch land, there is no prohibition for issuance of 10(1)

account. A tenancy, to receive the protection under the Actand exposing the landowners to severe disadvantage isrequired to be supported either by written documents betweenthe parties, or entries in the revenue records. Mere oralassertion does not serve the purpose. The failure on the partof the petitioner to file any such records establishes that hewas not at all in possession of the property, much less atenant thereof.....

26. In Essen Deinki v. Rajiv Kumar[[25]],the Apex Court held as follows:

"......It is merely a revisional jurisdiction and does notconfer an unlimited authority or prerogative to correct allorders or even wrong decisions made within the limits ofthe jurisdiction of the courts below. the finding of factbeing within the domain of the inferior tribunal, exceptwhere it is a perverse recording thereof or not based onany material whatsoever resulting in manifest injustice,interference under the article is not called for.

..... Needless to record that there is total unanimity ofjudicial precedents on the score that error must be that oflaw and patently on record committed by the inferiortribunal so as to warrant intervention-it ought not to act asa court of appeal and there is no dissension or even acontra-note being sounded at any point of time till date. Incidentally, the illegality, if there be any, in an order ofan inferior tribunal, it would however be a plain exerciseof jurisdiction under the article to correct the same asotherwise the law courts would fail to subserve the needsof the society since illegality cannot even becountenanced under any circumstances....."

27. In view of the aforesaid discussion, it is to be seen that therevisional jurisdiction does not confer an unlimited authority orprerogative to correct all orders or even wrong decisions within thelimits of jurisdiction of the courts below. The finding of fact iswithin the domain of the inferior tribunal, except where it is aperverse recording thereof or not based on any materialwhatsoever resulting in manifest injustice, interference underArticle 227 of the Constitution of India is not called for. As such, I

do not find any infirmity or error in the orders passed by theCourts below warranting interference of this Court by exercisingthe restricted revisional jurisdiction under Article 227 of theConstitution of India. Therefore, the Civil Revision Petitions areliable to be dismissed.

Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petitions are dismissed.No costs.

As a sequel thereto, Miscellaneous Petitions, if any,pending shall stand closed.

_____________________

A. RAJASHEKER REDDY, J

Date: -10-2013

Note:L.R. Copy to be marked.

B.O./Ksn

[1]AIR 1954 Travencore-Cochin 152

[2]1961 Calcutta 359

[3]1966 ALD 280

[4]AIR 1940 Patna 683

[5]AIR 2007 AP 137

[6]AIR 1959 AP 272

[7]AIR 1954 SC 355

[8]AIR 1967 Supreme Court 341

[9](2004) 8 Supreme Court Cases 588

[10]2010 (5) Supreme Court Cases 104

[11]2008 (15) Supreme Court Cases 673

[12]1994 (6) Supreme Court Cases 117

[13]2005 (4) Andhra Law Times 235

[14]2002 (8) Supreme Court Cases 400

[15]AIR 1954 Travancore-Cochin 152

[16]AIR 1961 Calcutta 359

[17]1966 Andhra Law Times 280

[18]AIR 1940 Patna 683

[19]AIR 1954 Supreme Court 355

[20]AIR 1967 Supreme Court 341AIR 1967 Supreme Court 341

[21](2004) 8 Supreme Court Cases 588(2004) 8 Supreme Court Cases 588

[22](2010) 5 Supreme Court Cases 104(2010) 5 Supreme Court Cases 104

[23](1994) 6 Supreme Court Cases 117(1994) 6 Supreme Court Cases 117

[24]2005 (4) Andhra Law Times 2352005 (4) Andhra Law Times 235

[25](2002) 8 Supreme Court Cases 400(2002) 8 Supreme Court Cases 400