CRP/6391/2018 of MUSALI VENU GOPAL Vs CHINTAPALLI KUSUMA KUMARI @ KUSUM MOHAN on 31 December 2024

1. Musali Venu Gopal, S/o Late Musali Pitchaiah, aged about 43 yrs., OccAgriculture, R/o Susarlavari Street, Kaluvai (V and M), Nellore Dist.Agriculture, R/o Susarlavari Street, Kaluvai (V and M), Nellore Dist.

2. Musali Venkateshwarlu, S/o Late Pitchaiah. agedabout43yrs.,OccAgriculture, R/o Susarlavari Street. Kaluvai (V and M), Nellore Dist.Agriculture, R/o Susarlavari Street. Kaluvai (V and M), Nellore Dist.

3. Musali Venkateswarlu, S/o Late Subbarayudu. aged[about][ 54]yrs., OccAgriculture, R/o Susarlavari Street, Kaluvai (V and M), Nellore Dist.Agriculture, R/o Susarlavari Street, Kaluvai (V and M), Nellore Dist.4. Vonteru Peda Kondaiah, S/o Late Kondaiah. aged about73yrs.,R/oSusarlavari Street. Kaluvai (V and M), Nellore Dist.Susarlavari Street. Kaluvai (V and M), Nellore Dist.

AND

...Petitioners / Defendants

Chintapalli Kusuma Kumari @ Kusum Mohan, W/o Ram Mohan.aged about69 yrs.. R/o No. 17. Marsay way south. Holmadal, Ne Jersey - 07733-1348

USA.Rep.byher GPAParlapalli PadmanabhaReddy,S/olateChinaPenchalaReddy,agedabout74yrs.,R/oFlatNo.02-C,BalajiManorApartments. MSR Nagar, Magunta Layout, Nellore.

...Respondent/Petitioner

lA NO:1 OF 2018

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the[circumstances]stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the Fligh Court may bepleasedtostayallfurtherproceedingsincludingevictionofpetitionschedule land in pursuance of orders of Appellate Tribunal cum PrincipalDist Court dated 27.07.2018 in ATA.No.1/2016 and judgment[and][ decree]dated 17.10.2016 of Junior Civil Judge cum Special[Officer][ in][ ATC.No1/13.]

Counsel for the Petitioners: SRI. P.S.P. SURESH KUMAR

Counsel for the Respondent: SRI. Y.L. SIVA KALPANA REDDY

The Court made the following Order:

APHC010810862018IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRAPRADESHAT AMARAVATI(Special Original Jurisdiction)PRADESHAT AMARAVATI(Special Original Jurisdiction)

[3505]

TUESDAY ,THE THIRTY FIRST DAY OF DECEMBERTWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

PRESENT

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T.C.D.SEKHAR

CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 6391/2018

Between:

Musali Venu Gopal and Others

...PETITIONER(S)

AND

Chintapalli Kusuma Kumari Kusum Mohan

...RESPONDENT

Counsel for the Petitloner(S):

1. P S P SURESH KUMAR

Counsel for the Respondent:

1. Y L SIVA KALPANA REDDY

The Court made the following:

The present revision petition is filed against the[order][ dated]27.07.2018in ATA No.1/2016 on thefile of Appellate[Tribunal]under the Andhra Pradesh (Andhra Area) Tenancy Act,1956-cum-Principal District Judge, Nellore, which confirmed[the][ order]dated17.10.2016in ATC No.1/2013 onthefileof JuniorCivilJudge, Atmakur, SPSR Nellore District.

2. Therespondentistheabsoluteownerofthepetitionschedule propertiesi.e., items 1-3 having purchased[the][ same]underaregisteredsaledated05.11.1975videdocumentNo.2990/1975 on the file of Sub Registrar’s Office,[Atmakur.][ The]respondent claims to have purchased some more adjacent[lands]which are described as item Nos.4 and 5 of the petition[schedule]propertiesunderregisteredsale deeddated05.11.1975videdocument No.2972/1975 from S.R.O, Atmakur. After purchase[of]thesaidproperties,therespondentclaimstohavebeeninpeacefulpossessionandenjoymentofthesameandsubsequently, she left to USA. Since she was not in country, thepetitionschedulepropertieswerehandedovertoherelderbrother by name Sri Parlapalli Subosh Chandra Bose Reddy andschedule propertiesi.e., items 1-3 having purchased[the][ same]underaregisteredsaledated05.11.1975videdocumentNo.2990/1975 on the file of Sub Registrar’s Office,[Atmakur.][ The]respondent claims to have purchased some more adjacent[lands]which are described as item Nos.4 and 5 of the petition[schedule]propertiesunderregisteredsale deeddated05.11.1975videdocument No.2972/1975 from S.R.O, Atmakur. After purchase[of]thesaidproperties,therespondentclaimstohavebeeninpeacefulpossessionandenjoymentofthesameandsubsequently, she left to USA. Since she was not in country, thepetitionschedulepropertieswerehandedovertoherelderbrother by name Sri Parlapalli Subosh Chandra Bose Reddy and the said individual was managing the petition schedule propertieson behalf of the respondent.

3. It is the further case of the respondent that, on 25.10.1996her brother died and his widow took over the possession[of][ the]subject properties and was managing the same. Thereafter,[when]the respondent’s sister-in-law was unable to cultivate the petitionscheduleproperties,sheenteredintooralleasewiththepetitionersin the year 2004,for cultivating the crops[and][ was]collectingtheleaseamountsfromthem.Thereafter,therespondentgave GPAtoheranotherbrotherby nameSriParlapalli Padmanabha Reddy on 23.05.2007.

4. Initially,thepetitionerswerepayinganamountofRs.20,000/-inrespectof thepetitionschedulepropertiesasmaktha (lease) to the respondent.It is further contended by therespondent that, the petitioners failed to pay the[lease][ amount]from the year 2008. The petitioners requested that they wouldpay the amount of lease next year i.e.,in the year 2009,in asmuch as the seasonal crops were damaged due to floodingofwater from Penna River. The respondent’s GPA waited up to April2010,but thepetitioners didnot turnupto pay themakthaRs.20,000/-inrespectof thepetitionschedulepropertiesasmaktha (lease) to the respondent.It is further contended by therespondent that, the petitioners failed to pay the[lease][ amount]from the year 2008. The petitioners requested that they wouldpay the amount of lease next year i.e.,in the year 2009,in asmuch as the seasonal crops were damaged due to floodingofwater from Penna River. The respondent’s GPA waited up to April2010,but thepetitioners didnot turnupto pay themaktha

(lease). Thepetitioners withanevildesignto evademaktha(lease) and taking advantage of lack of personal supervisionofthe respondent,triedto convert the ownershipof thepetitionschedule propertiesincollusion withthe revenueofficials.Inthosecircumstances,therespondentissuednoticedated26.09.2012 through her GPA to the petitioners cancelling[the][ oral]leaseenteredbetweenthemanddirectedthepetitionerstodeliver the vacant possession of the petition schedule[properties]and to pay arrears of maktha (lease) amount of Rs.80,000/-.

5. Having received the said notice, the petitioners issuedareply dated 17.10.2012, denying the ownership of the[respondent.]Inthosecircumstances,therespondenthereinfiledATCNo.1/2013 on the file of Junior Civil Judge, Atmakur[under][ the]provisions of Section 16(1) of Andhra Praesh (A.A)[Tenency][ Act,]1956, with a direction to the petitioners to vacate[from][ the][ petition]schedule properties and to deliver vacant possession[of][ the][ same]to the respondent.If the petitioners filed to vacate,[the][ same][ may]be done through due process of law.reply dated 17.10.2012, denying the ownership of the[respondent.]Inthosecircumstances,therespondenthereinfiledATCNo.1/2013 on the file of Junior Civil Judge, Atmakur[under][ the]provisions of Section 16(1) of Andhra Praesh (A.A)[Tenency][ Act,]1956, with a direction to the petitioners to vacate[from][ the][ petition]schedule properties and to deliver vacant possession[of][ the][ same]to the respondent.If the petitioners filed to vacate,[the][ same][ may]be done through due process of law.

6. Thesaid ATC wasresistedby thepetitionersbyfilingcounter affidavit, whereby and where under,it is contended[that]

the total extent of land is Ac.8.56 cents, which is a single plot.It isfurther contendedbythepetitionersthat,thebrotheroftherespondent namelySriChandrasekharReddyaliasSubhoshChandrabhose, sold the petition schedule properties[to][ the father]of the petitioner Nos.1 & 2 and the petitioner Nos.3[&][ 4][ for][ a][ sum]of Rs. 1,80,000/- towards sale consideration in the month of July1993.It was further contendedthat,Sri Chandrasekhar Reddyalias Subhosh Chandrabhose, represented to them that[he][ was]selling the lands in question with the consent of the respondent.ThesaidSriChandrasekharReddyaliasSubhoshChandrabhose, further promised that he would go to[USA][ where]the respondent is staying, and pay the sale consideration[to][ her]and obtain GPA in his favor so as to execute register[sale][ deeds]in favor of the petitioners. The said statement was believed by thepetitioners with confidence reposed on Sri Chandrasekhar Reddy.

7. Itisfurthercontendedthat,thepossessionwasalsodelivered by the said Sri Chandrasekhar Reddy to the petitionersand since then, they are enjoying the petition schedule propertiesas lawful owners. The petitioners emphatically denied that theyare the tenants of the respondent and claimed ownership[over][ the]petitionscheduleproperties.Therefore,thequestionof committing default and demanding maktha (lease) does[not][ arise]and prayed to dismiss the ATC filed by the respondent.[The][ trail]Court after considering the oral and documentary evidence byorderdated17.10.2016,allowedthepetitionfiledbytherespondent with costs, directing the petitioners herein[to][ vacate]thepetitionschedulepropertiesandtodeliverthevacantpossession to the respondent within three (03) months[from][ the]dateof the order andif thepetitionersfailedtodoso,therespondent is at liberty to proceed as per law.

8. The said order of thetrail Court was challenged by[the]petitionersbyfilingappealvide ATANo. 1/2016beforetheappellatetribunalunderthe AndhraPradesh(AndhraArea)Tenancy Act,1956-cum-PrinicpalDistrict Judge Court,Nellore.The appellate court upon appreciating the case, confirmedtheorder of the trail Court by dismissing the appeal by[order][ dated]27.07.2018. The said orderis being impugnedin the presentrevision petition.petitionersbyfilingappealvide ATANo. 1/2016beforetheappellatetribunalunderthe AndhraPradesh(AndhraArea)Tenancy Act,1956-cum-PrinicpalDistrict Judge Court,Nellore.The appellate court upon appreciating the case, confirmedtheorder of the trail Court by dismissing the appeal by[order][ dated]27.07.2018. The said orderis being impugnedin the presentrevision petition.

9. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the counselfor the respondent.for the respondent.

10. Perused the material available on record.

11. The petitioners have examined witnesses who deposed[in]support of the case of the petitioners, as if the petitioners[are][ the]purchasers. The oral evidence of the witnesses does not provethe title claimed by the petitioners and their evidence can only beconsidered to assume the possession of the petitioners.Itisafact that therespondent hereinistheabsolute ownerofthepetition schedule properties and the same is also not denied bythe petitioners. The case of the petitioners is that[there]is no landlordandtenantrelationshipbetweenthepetitionersandtherespondent in as much as, they claimed that they have purchasedthepropertiesforavaluableconsiderationfromSriChandrasekharReddyalias SubhoshChandrabhose,thebrotheroftherespondent.Tosubstantiatetheirclaim,thepetitioners did not file any documentary proof except making anavermentinthecounteraffidavit andthedepositionsoftheadjacentlandowners.Intheabsenceofanydocumentaryevidence,it cannot be held that the petitioners are[the][ owners][ of]the petition schedule properties.support of the case of the petitioners, as if the petitioners[are][ the]purchasers. The oral evidence of the witnesses does not provethe title claimed by the petitioners and their evidence can only beconsidered to assume the possession of the petitioners.Itisafact that therespondent hereinistheabsolute ownerofthepetition schedule properties and the same is also not denied bythe petitioners. The case of the petitioners is that[there]is no landlordandtenantrelationshipbetweenthepetitionersandtherespondent in as much as, they claimed that they have purchasedthepropertiesforavaluableconsiderationfromSriChandrasekharReddyalias SubhoshChandrabhose,thebrotheroftherespondent.Tosubstantiatetheirclaim,thepetitioners did not file any documentary proof except making anavermentinthecounteraffidavit andthedepositionsoftheadjacentlandowners.Intheabsenceofanydocumentaryevidence,it cannot be held that the petitioners are[the][ owners][ of]the petition schedule properties.

12. On the other hand, the respondent has filed sale deeds[to]show her ownership over the petition schedule properties[and]infact, the ownership of the respondent is also not disputed by theshow her ownership over the petition schedule properties[and]infact, the ownership of the respondent is also not disputed by the petitioners.In the absence of any material beforethisCourtproving the alleged ownership of the petitioners, there is no othergo except to accept the contention of the respondentthatthepetitioners are her tenants.

13. Since thepetitioners failedto pay the annual tenancyamount, in view of the Section 13 of the Andhra Pradesh (AndhraArea) Tenancy Act, 1956, the respondent is entitled to terminatethe tenancy of the petitioners and accordingly a legal[notice]wasissued under Ex.p4. The trail Court as well as the lower appellatecourt having considered the oral and documentary evidence[have]concluded that, the petitioners are the tenants of the respondentandtheydidnotpaythe annuallease amount from 2008onwards.During the courseof hearing,the counselfortherespondent brought to the notice of this Court that, pending theinstant revision petition, the respondent filed execution petitionvide EP No.36/2017 and the possession of the petition scheduleproperties was handed over to the respondent but the same is notrecorded by the executing Court. The said submission made bythe counsel for the respondent is not refuted by the petitioners.Though the delivery was ordered, the same was not recorded bythe executingCourt.This Court by order dated 30.10.2018,amount, in view of the Section 13 of the Andhra Pradesh (AndhraArea) Tenancy Act, 1956, the respondent is entitled to terminatethe tenancy of the petitioners and accordingly a legal[notice]wasissued under Ex.p4. The trail Court as well as the lower appellatecourt having considered the oral and documentary evidence[have]concluded that, the petitioners are the tenants of the respondentandtheydidnotpaythe annuallease amount from 2008onwards.During the courseof hearing,the counselfortherespondent brought to the notice of this Court that, pending theinstant revision petition, the respondent filed execution petitionvide EP No.36/2017 and the possession of the petition scheduleproperties was handed over to the respondent but the same is notrecorded by the executing Court. The said submission made bythe counsel for the respondent is not refuted by the petitioners.Though the delivery was ordered, the same was not recorded bythe executingCourt.This Court by order dated 30.10.2018, directed the executing Court not to record delivery,if the deliveryis not yet recorded. From the above,it is clear that pending thepresent revision petition, the possession of the petition[schedule]properties is also handed over to the respondent. As[discussed]supra, the petitioners failed to prove their title over the petitionschedule properties and in view of the concurrent findings[of][ the]trail Courts, this Court is of the opinion that, the order impugneddoes not warrant interference and the claim of the petitioners isrightly rejected.

14. For the foregoing reasons, there is no merit in the[revision]petition, accordingly the same is dismissed.petition, accordingly the same is dismissed.

There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, pendingapplications, if any, shall stand closed.

Sd/-SHAIK MOHD RAFIASSISTANT REGISTRAR

/TRUE COPY//

'SECTION OFFICER

To

1. One CC to Sri P.S.P. Suresh Kumar Advocate [OPUC]2.One CC to Sri Y L Siva Kalpana Reddy, Advocate [OPUC]3. Two CD CopiesGLM

HIGH COURT

DATED:31/12/2024

ORDER

CRP.No.6391 of 2018

DISMISSING THE C.R.P.WITHOUT COSTS.

X0 8 IAN 2025Co,<5.Current Seciion®esPATC>*S^