Par
vey
balINTHECOURTOFTHEJUDGE,FAMILYCOURT-CUM-IVADDL.DISTRICT
ANDSESSIONSJUDGF,ATADILABAD
Present:Smt.ArunaSarika,
Judge,FamilyCourt-Cum-IVAddl.
DistrictandSessionsJudge, Adilabad.
Wednesdaythe290dayofJune,206
ASNo.26OF20I0
Between:
GuttikondaNarasimhaRao,S/o.LateSeetharamaiah,Age:59years, Oce:Ex-Naibusubedar[PHC],R/o.20-40/68,WestVenkatapuram, Tirumalghery,Secunderabad
..Appellant
and
.Sri.RaghunathMittal,S/o.ShambhunathMittal,Age:65 years,Occ:Business,R/io.NH-7,Adilabad
2.Smt.NirmalaDevi,W/o.Chironjilal,representedbyits powerofattorneyholder,Sri.RaghunathMittal,S/o. ShambhunathMittal,Age:65years,Occ:Business,R/o.NH- 7,Adilabad
3.ShaikariSriVishwanatham,S/o.RajeshwarRao,G.N.Rao andSons,IndianOilPump,NearRestHouse,NH-7,Adilabad [Exparte]
4.IndianOilCorporation,NaspurHouse,Himayatnagar, Hyderabad[Exparte]
..Respondents
(Onappealagainstthejudgmentdated2.07.200madeinO.S.No.3/2005on thefileofthecourtofJuniorCivilJudgeatAdilabad)
Between: .Sri.RaghunathMittal
2.Smt.NirmalaDevi
..Plaintiffs
and
l.GuttikondaNarasimhaRao
2.ShaikariSriVishwanatham[Exparte]
3.IndianOilCorporation,NaspurHouse[Exparte]
..Defendants
fatedre AO3Wee 24,Thisappeal‘iscomingon27.04.206forfinalhearingbeforemeinthepresence
८2.ofSri.Y, Vishnw‘Bhagawan, Advocatefortheappellantand ofSri.VijayKumar, Advoeateéfor.the“respondents]and2,therespondentNo,3calledabsent,the respondent,No.4:remainedexparte,andthematterhavingstoodoverfor consideration;thiscourtdeliveredthefollowing:
JUDGMENT
Thisappealfiledbytheunsuccessfulappellant/defendantNo.l (defendantNo.forshort)isdirectedagainstthejudgmentanddecree१६2.07.200 madeinO.S.No.3/2005onthefileofthecourtofJuniorCivilJudgeatAdilabad whichwasfiledbytherespondentsNo.iand2/plaintiffs[plaintiffsforshort]against theappellantandrespondentsNo.3and4,toputplaintiffsintothevacantpossession oftheleasedoutlandbearingNo.7--33/B,plotNO.37/Aandaroomsituatednear
NH.No.7,Opp:Resthouse,DwarakanagarlocalityofAdilabaddirectingthe defendantstohandoverthevacantPossessionofthesamepremisestotheplaintiffs; todeclarethedefendantsaswillfuldefaulterandordertopayarrearsofrentdue
Rs.32,375/-i.e.fromSeptember,2004toJanuary,2005for5monthsandhemaybe evictfromthesaidleasedoutlandandfurthertodirectthemtomakethepayment ofrentamountofRs.6,475/-permonthfromthedateofpresentationofthesuittill thedateofevictionandforcostsofthesuit.
2,Thiscourtoffirstappealisthelastcourtoffact.Hence,itisnecessary toadverttothepleadingsofboththesides.Thepartiesarebeingreferredtoasthe plaintiffsandthedefendantsasarrayedinthesuitbeforethetrialcourtfor convenienceforclarity.
oiTheavermentsintheplaint,inbrief,areasfollows:“Theplaintiffisthe ownerandpossessoroftheopenlandsituatedontheNationalHighwaysNo.7,Opp:
toRestHouse‘bearing:premisesNo.7--33/B,PlotNo.37/A,areaadmeasuring000
PEEPRDER
Sgyards:locality“ofAdilabadtown.ThedefendantinthemonthofJuly,990 approachedtheplaintiffandtequestedhimtoleaseoutthesaidopenlandtohimfor
TunningretailpetroloiitlétofIndianOilCorporationatAdilabadandenteredintoa
ORIGINAL
rAS‘No26of200aZB
sz
ofRs.5,000/-,furtherandenhancementofrental@0%foreveryfouryearsandrent waspaidonorbefore7ofeverycalendarmonthsincethedayofleaseagreement.
Accordingly,thedefendanthassetupthepumponthesaidlandandthedefendant hasbeensuccessfullyrunninghisretailpetroloutletontheleaseoutlandbythe plaintiff.Thedefendant,accordingtoenhancementofrentconditionwaspayingrent
Rs.6,475/-permonthatthetimeoffilingofthesuitandpaidtherenttillAugust, 2004andlaterhestoppedpayingtherent.Thedefendantwithoutpriorpermission oftheplaintiffhasgiventhecontrolofthepumptodefendantNo.2whoisrunning theaffairsofthepumpunderhiscontrol.Whenthe5yearsperiodoflease agreementisgoingtobecompletedinthenextyeari.e.inthemonthofAugust,2005, theplaintiffwassurprisedandshockedtoreceivethelegalnoticesentbythe defendantdated24.08.2004withulteriormotiveandmalafideintentiondenyingthe titleoftheplaintiffovertheleasedoutland,followedbythenoticedefendantपिठ.] filedacivilsuitagainsttheplaintiffbeforetheSeniorCivilJudge’sCourt,Adilabad videOS.No.42/2004andinstitutedprivatecomplaintbeforetheJudicialMagistrate ofFirstClass,Adilabadundersection420and406IPC,whichwasreferredtoP.SI
Town,AdilabadandaccordinglyFIRissuedvideCr.No.99/2004dated28.2.2004.
ThedefendantNo.]inordertoharasstheplaintiffhasbeendoingalltheseacts.In viewofthedenialofthetitleovertheabovesaidleasedoutlandbythedefendantin the notice dated 24.08.2004,the plaintiff gotissued alegalnoticeforterminateand determinethetenancyon22..2004,whichwasreceivedbythedefendants.The defendantneithercarestoreplynorvacatedthesaidpremises.Theconductof defendantnc isdeliberately,continuedwiththetenancyafterbreachingtheconditionbydenialof ‘titleoverthepremisesandntpayingrentsinceAugust,2004. Thedefendantis underanobligationtovacatethesaidpremises of theplaintiffandtheplaintiff is entitledtogetevictthedefendantfromthesaidpremises.On.22..2004theplaintiff gotissuedlegalnoticetothedefendantterminatingthetenancyandcalleduponthe
ee
ORIGINAL
4ASNo26of2040
\.
defendanttovacatethepremisesbearingNo.7--33/B,plotNo.37Aताकको.5
000sq.yardswithinamonthfromthedateofreceiptofnotice,thesaidnoticewas servedtodefendant.Inspiteofreceivingthenoticethedefendantneithervacatedthe saidpremisesnorhehasgivenany=tothenoticesentbytheplaintiff.Asthe defendantwithamalafideintentionnottovacatethepremisesasthe5yearslease periodisabouttoeffluxthedefendantdeliberatelycreatedafalsestorybydenying thetitleoverthesaidlandonwhichhehasbeenrunninghisretailoutletpump successfully.Inspiteofthereceiptofthelegalnoticethedefendantfailedtovacate thepremises,whichmakethenecessaryforfilingthesuitforevictionandpossession ofthesaidland”.
4.ThedefendantNo.filedwrittenstatement.Theavermentsinthesaid
writtenstatement,inbrief,areasfollows:“ThedefendantNo.ldeniesallthe
allegationsmadebytheplaintiffs.Thesuitisnotmaintainableeitheronfactsor basedonlawandisliabletobedismissedasbarredbylimitation,withexemplary costs.TheplaintiffsarenottheowneroftheopenlandsituatedontheNH.No.7,
Opp:RestHousebearingNo.7--33/B,PlotNo.37lareaadmeasuringto000
sq.yardssituatedatAdilabad.Advertingtoavermentsoftheplaint,itisadmitted
thatthedefendant०.]hadapproachedtheplaintiffandhadalsoenteredintoa
leaseagreementwiththem.ThedefendantNo.lwasgrantedRetailPetrolandHSD
OilOutletdealershipundertheDefenceCategorybyM/s.IndianOilCorporation,
Secunderabadundersocialobjectiveschemevideitsletterdated25.08.989and हेdéfendant’No.lwas.inneedforopenlandforsettingupofaretailpetrol06at
Adilabed.Atthatstage:theplaintiffshereinhaveofferedandletout.an,area
ORIGINAL
ASNo26 of20405Bz
ifeeres
Bi.@l0%foreveryfouryearsposingthemselvesasabsoluteownersand possessorsandshownhimsomefabricateddocumentsinsupportoftheirownership andaccordinglycollectingmonthlyrentofRs.5,000/-permonthfromAugust,999 toJuly,994,Rs.5,500/-permonthfromAugust,994toJuly,998,Rs.6,050/-per monthfromAugust,998toJuly,2002andRs.6,655/-fromAugust,2002totillfiling ofthesuit.TheplaintiffshavecollectedasumofRs.9,54,20/-towardsrentsfromthe defendant०.Thedefendant१०.]submittedtheleaseandotherdocumentstothe
JointCollector,Adilabad,Commissioner,Municipality,Adilabadwithdetailedlay outplanandafterduephysicalsurveyofthepremisesbytheRevenue
Administrationvideitsreportdated06.05.992andapprovalbythecompetent authority,theJointCollectorhasissuedlicenseच०.29/9]todefendantNo.lon 78.04.99andNOCwasalsoissuedtohimon27.0.990asrequiredunderRule44 ofPetroleumRule975andunderRule50oftheArmsActrules968forsettingupa retailpetroleumoutletandwasrunningthepetroleumoutletinthesuitschedule premisesandhasbeenpayingrentalstotheplaintiffs.Suddenly,theMunicipality,
Adilabadissuedanoticedated2.04.995todefendantNo.]allegingthathehas encroachedontotheMunicipallandbydestroyingthemunicipalserviceroadand pathandconstructedthepetrolpumpillegallywithoutpermissionandcancelledthe
NOCandalsoLicensewithoutpriornoticeandtrytostophisbusiness.However, theHon’bleHighcourtofA.Phassuspendedoperationofcancellingorderin
WP.No.4405/995videitsorderdated6.06.995andaccordinglythebusinessis
beingcontinued.TheAssistantDirectorSurveyandLandRecords,Adilabad,
MandalRevenueOfficerAdilabadvidetheirreportsfiled,clearlymentionedthatthe Nea ) > ndunder.the06९pationbythedefendant१०.forsettingupthepetrolpumpis a
Peisofthetitle of theplaintiffsfromtheRegistration.
ORIGINAL
6ASNo26of2040
ey
Rs.9,54,20/-therentpaidbyhimtotheplaintiffsbeforetheSeniorCivilJudge's * Court,AdilabadvideOS.No.42/2004andthematterispending.Thedefendantsfiled apetitionunderorderXXXIXruleCPCagainsttheplaintifffornotcollectingthe rentfromthedefendantNo.I,thepetitionwasdismissedandlaterthedefendant
No.lwentinappealandthematterispendingatHon’bleHighCourtofAP,
Hyderabad.Thedefendantि०.]wenttotheplaintiffstopaytherentbutplaintiffs refusedtotaketherentstatingthatthematterispendingbeforethecourtandhence, onlyaftertheorderofthecourthewillcollecttherentfromthedefendant०.].The defendantNo.Iisreadytodeposittherentinthecourt.Theplaintiffsinordertofile thesuithavestoppedcollectingtherentfromthedefendantNo..Alreadyasuitvide
OS.No.42/2004ispendingbeforetheSeniorCivilJudge’sCourt,Adilabadinrespect
ofthesamesubjectmatterbetweenthesameparties,hencethepresentsuitisliable tobestayed.Thesuitisdevoidofmeritsandisliabletobedismissed,intheinterest ofjustice.
5.ThedefendantsNo.2and3weresetexparteandremainedexparte.
6.Takingintoconsiderationtheabovepleadingsandmaterialonrecord, thetrialcourtframedthefollowingissueson20.0.2005fortrial:
.Whethertheplaintiffisentitledforadecreetovacatedefendantsfromthe plaintschedulelandputintheplaintiffinthevacantpossessionofthesameor not?
WhethertheplaintiffisentitledforarrearsofrentofRs.32375/-from
है३४5|2004 toJanuary,2005i.e.for 5rhionthsforthesuitscheduleand f.filing©tithesuittillrecoveryofpossessionofsuitscheduleor-not?
ss.
ORIGINAL
ASNo26of2040e3%
;geez
‘3
ve‘Duringthecourseoftrialbeforethetrialcourt,theplaintiffhimselfwas7 + examinedasPWIandExs.AltoA8weremarkedonbehalfofplaintiffs.OneSriV.
SrinivasRao,thethenManagerofDefendantNo.I,petrolpumpwasexaminedas
DWIand#छाandEx.B2weremarkedonbehalfofdefendants.Thedefendants
No.2and3remainedexparteandthusnoevidenceeitheroralordocumentarywas adducedonbehalfofdefendantsNo.2and3.Onmeritsthetrialcourtdecreedthe suitwithcostsofplaintiffsdirectingthedefendantstodeliverthevacantpossession ofthesuitpropertytotheplaintiffsandfurtherdirectedthedefendantsNo.]and2to paythearrearsofrentofRs.33,275/-fromSeptember,2004toJanuary,2005 @Rs.6,655/-permonthandalsotopaythearrearsofrentsatthesameratefromthe dateofpresentationofthesuittillthedateofeviction.
8.Aggrievedofthesaiddecreeandjudgmentofthetrialcourt,the defendantNo.lhadpreferredtheinstantappealandurged,apartfromtheusual grounds,thefollowingspecificgroundsofappeal:
i)“Thelowercourthadgrosslyerredindecreeingthesuitofthe respondentNo.]and2hereinwithcostsanddirectingtheappellant andrespondentNo.3and4todeliverthevacantpossessionofsuit propertytorespondentNo.]and2andfurtherdirectingtheappellant andrespondentNo.3topayarrearsofrentofRs.33,275/-from September,2004toJanuary,2006@Rs.6,655/-permonthandalsoto paythearrearsofrentatthesameratefromthedateofpresentation ofsuittillthedateofevictionwithoutappreciatingtheevidenceon
Besewithoutgrantinganytimelimitwhen apetrol bunkis
"nes+4+5
TMtheréforetherespondentNo.3and4areliable~to:vacate’theSuit
propertyastheleaseisdeterminedbythe,respondenteneand
tie
ORIGINAL
8ASNo26of200
nothingwaselicitedinhiscrossexaminationtodisprovetheevidence
०7०५७१.
iii)|Thelowercourthadgrosslyerredinholdingthattheauthenticityof
छ८छishighlysuspiciousanddoubtfulandthepaymentofrentof
Rs.77,400/-totherespondent]०.isalsosuspiciousanddoubtful
andassuchEx.Blisnotestablishedbeforethiscourtasperthe
conceptofpreponderanceofprobabilities.
iv)Thelowercourtgrosslyerredinholdingthatthereisnoiotaof
evidenceinthedepositionoftheappellantdenyingthetitleofthe
plaintiffs.Asamatteroffacttherespondentfailedtoprovehistitle
overthesuitland.
v)Thelowercourthadgrosslyerredinholdingthatafterissuingthe
leaseterminationnoticetotheappellantandrespondentNo.3and4,
therespondent१०.and2filedthesuitforevictionon27.05.2005.
vi)Thelowercourtgrosslyerredinholdingthatthesuitisnotbarredby
thelimitationandnotappreciatedtheevidenceonrightperspective.
vii)Thelowercourthaddecreedthesuitonassumptionsand
presumptionwhichisnotsupportedbylaw.
viii)Theappellantprayedtoallowtheappealbysettingasidethe
judgmentanddecreeofthelowercourt.” 9:Ihaveheardthesubmissionsofthelearnedcounselforboththesides.I
havecarefullyperusedthematerialonrecordincludingtheimpugneddecreeand
judgmentandthegroundsofappealurgedbythedefendantNo.I.
ae6.filedtwointerlocutory‘applicationsinIA.No
१02inthepresentappealin05,.90.26/200,.5९९ताएto
if
tsfya’listedenclosedtotwoapplications.Onmerits,thesaid
ionsin[A.No.245/20I2and$A.No.09/204aredismissed
onmerits,4ANSdated29.06.206
=
ORIGINAL
ASNo26of200Tee
aoaacid sf४.Thelearnedcounselforthedefendantविठ्यhadarguedthatthe defendantNo.hadtakenthesuitschedulepropertyonleaseon0.08.990andlater itisstyledasanagreementintheyear992.HefurtherarguedthatasperEx.A, leaseperiodisof5yearsandthesuitwasfiledintheyear2005andthesameis barredbythelawoflimitation.HefurtherarguedthatEx.AlandEx.A2,lease agreementdated0.08.990and2.03.992arenotadmissibleinevidenceastheyhit bySec.7ofRegistrationAct.Hearguedthatthedefendantsdeniedthetitleof plaintiffbutitisfactthathetookpropertyonleaseandwhentitleisdenieditisthe plaintifftoprovethetitletothepropertyandthereshouldbeanissuewithregardto ittobeframedbythetrialcourt.Hefurtherarguedthatthedenialevidencesought bydefendantNo.]bywayoffilinginterlocutoryapplicationsin[A.No.245/202and
IA.No.09/20l4aretoknowhowtheplaintiffsmisrepresentingthefactsand
misleadingthecourthadobtainedfavourableorders.HearguedthatMunicipality hadissuedanoticetodefendantNo.statingthatsuitschedulepropertyisa municipallandanddemandedtovacatetheland,againstwhichthedefendantNo.
filedwritpetition.HefurtherarguedthatEngineeringDepartmentalongwith
RevenueDepartmentcametolandandinspectedandrepresentedthatthesuit schedulepropertyisagovernmentland.Hefurtherarguedthattheplaintifffileda representationon9.03.2005toMunicipalAuthorityadmittingthathehasnotitleto thesuitschedulepropertyandbytwistingandchangingtheplaceofthesuit scheduleproperty,theyfiledthepresentsuitagainstthedefendants.Hefurther arguedthatthedefendantNo.!filedtwoapplicationstoreceivethedocumentsand and:the- ecarenecessaryforproperadjudicationoftheissue vs{
4filed’documents
meat licationfiledforimplead“ofgovernment,those, documents,aresaledeedapdotherdocuments.Hefurtherargued:thattheplaintiff has notpurchasdd!then.40eescheduleleasedlandwhichwasinitiallyleasedout to_
Meme
ORIGINAL
4087४७26of2040 defendant(०.andhepurchasedthelandinMavalavillageandtheymentionedthe ~~
propertyascomesunderMavalavillageandlatertheyrectifiedthatdeedi.e.
partitiondeedbychangingthevillagewherethesaidlandissituated.Hefurther, arguedthattheplaintiffevenexecutedcancellationofsaidpartitiondeedandin cancellationdeedtheyincludedthesuitschedulepropertyalso.Hefurtherargued
thatencumbrancecertificatewhichwasfiledbydefendantNo.lalongwith
interlocutoryapplication,whichwasfiledseekingtoreceivethedocumentsandthe sameclinchinglyreflectsallthesesaledeeds.Hefurtherarguedthatthedefendant
No.lalsofiledapetitionunderInformationActandtheyobtaineddocumentswhich
weresoughttobereceivedininterlocutoryapplicationwhichshowshowthey
mutatedthesuitschedulepropertyinthenameofplaintiffandeventhesaid
documentalsoreflectslandsinMavalavillagebutnotsuitscheduleproperty.He furtherarguedthattheplaintiffmisleadthedefendant०.।,Governmentandeven
courtastheplaintiffthemselvesadmittingthatthesuitschedulepropertyisa
Governmentland.HefurtherarguedthatIAfiledbydefendantNo.maybeallowed anddocumentsmaybereceiveontofileandinturnsuitmayberemandbacktothe lowercourttoleadevidencetodecidethetitleofthesuitscheduleproperty.He furtherarguedthatifjudgmentobtainedbyplayingfraud,judgmentbecomes nullity.
Herelieduponadecisionmade in thecaseofG.VidyasagarRaoVsDistrict
Collector,Nalgonda,NalgondaDistrict,APandothers,2008[2]ALD[Crl.]857
45Hon’bleHighCourtofAPhadheldasunder:
2court,hastobetreatedasanullitybyeveryCourt,whether
:[S.P.ChengalvarayaNaiduv.Jagannath;AIR994SC853
inferior.ItcanbechallengedinahyCourtevenincollateral yyaSastry’sv.SavitriDevi,2004[6]ALD3[SC]=[2003]85 Vice-Chairman,KendriyaVidyalayaSangathanv.Girdharilal- pegs[SC]=[2005]6SCC249,iiss[2004]6SCC325,StateofAPv.T.SuryachandraRao,005[5]
uttए.LandAcquisition
ORIGINAL
ASNo26of20i08हा
Collector,[2005]7SCC90;Lillykuttyv.ScrutinyCommittee,SC&ST [2005]8SCC283;ChiefEngineer,M.SEB.v.SureshRaghunathBhokare, [2005]0SCC465=2005AILD245[SC],Satyav.TejaSingh,[975]I SCC20;MahboobSahabv.SyedIsmail,[[995]3SCC696;andAsharfi Lalv.Koili,[995]4SCC63;JaiNarainParasrampuriav.PushpaDevi Saraf,[2006]7SCC756].If,indeed,theallegationsoffraudanddeceipt leveledagainstthepetitionerareestablished,theorderoftheLand ReformsTribunaldated26.04.977wouldberenderedanullity,andthe merefactthatithasattainedfinalitywouldbeoflittleconsequence. Thoughajudgmentwouldberesjudicataandnotimpleachablefrom within,itmightbeimpleachablefromwithout.Inotherwords,though itisnotpermissibletoshowthattheCourtwas‘mistaken’,itmightbe shownthatitwas“misled”.Thereisanessentialdistinctionbetween mistakeandtrickery.Theclearimplicationofthedistinctionisthatan actiontosetasideajudgmentcannotbebroughtonthegroundthatit hasbeendecidedwrongly,namely,thatonthemerits,thedecisionwas onewhichshouldnothavebeenrendered,butitcanbesetaside,ifthe Courtwasimposeduponortrickedintogivingthejudgment.The principleof“finalityoflitigation”cannotbestretchedtotheextentof anabsurditythatitcanbeutilizedasanengineofoppressionby dishonestandfraudulentlitigants.[A.V.PapayyaSastry’scase(supra)]. Inthelightofsuchseriousandgravechargesoffraudanddeceipt, relatingtonon-declarationofanextentofnearly00acresofland,Isee noreasontoinjuncttheallegationsmadeinthecomplaintfrombeing investigated”.
InthesaidcitedjudgmentHon'bleHighCourtrelieduponadecisionmade bytheApexCourtinA.VPapayyaSastryVs.SavitriDevi,2007[6]ALD68[SC]= [200704SCC22I.WhereinHon'bleSupremeCourtwhiledealingwithacasewhich involvedpropertyhadheldasunder:
“InUnionofIndiav.MadrasTelephoneSupremeCourt&STSocial WelfareAssociation,[2006]8SCC662,theSupremeCourtheldthat wheretherightsofpersonsaredeterminedinadulyconstituted proceedings,whichdeterminationhasattainedfinality,asubsequent judgmentofaCourtoraTribunaltakingacontraryviewwouldnot adverselyaffectsuchpersonsinwhosecasesordershaveattained finality.Theallegationsleveledagainstthepetitionerhereinareof fraudanddeceipt.Fraudvitiatesallactsandrendersorderspassedasa resultofsuchfraudanullity.Evenotherwise,itisnottheorderofthe LandReformsTribunalwhichissoughttobereopened,Allthatthe[8४ respondenthasdoneistodirectthe2ndrespondent“tolodgea
;=beforetheStationHouseOfficeragaingthyarYétitioner.for.
gedly,havingcommittedcertainoffences:+wader‘theIndian- le.Theconsequenceofacomplaintbeinglodgedisonlythe.\ entofaninvestigationintothe+matter.“Fepetitioner: investivationintothe’,
riousallegationsmadeinthecomplaint”A५7,
ORIGINAL
2AS.No26of20i0
HealsorelieduponadecisionmadeinthecaseofLandmarkDevelopers,
Hanmakonda,WarangalDistrictVs.StateofAndhraPradeshandothers,203[4]
ALD338.WhereinHon'bleHighCourtwhiledealingthefactofnon-registrationof
leasedeedU/sec.7[4][d]and49ofRegistrationAct,908hadheldasunder:
“'Tyansferofproperty’asdefinedunderSection5oftheTransferof
PropertyAct,4882meansanactbywhichalivingpersonconveys
property,inthepresentorinfuture,tooneormoreotherliving
persons,ortohimselfandoneormoreotherlivingpersons;andto
transferpropertyistoperformsuchact.Initsgeneralsense,the
expression‘transferofproperty’connotespassingoftherightsinthe
propertyfromonepersontoanother.Theexpression‘transfer’in
Section5oftheActconnotescreationofsomeinterestinimmovable
property.ItisnotindisputebeforethisCourtthatquarryleaseisa
‘lease’withinthemeaningof‘transferofproperty’.Forthatpurpose,
learnedCounselforthepetitionerreliedonadecisioninShri
TarakeshwarSioThakurJiuv.BarDassDeyandCo.andothers,AIR
4979SC669,whereinitisheldthateveryinterestinimmovable
propertyorabenefitarisingoutofthelandwillbeimmovableproperty
forthepurposeofSection05oftheTransferofPropertyAct,882”.
Inthecaseonhand,noregisteredtransferleasedeedisexecutedby
M/s.BlazeGranitesinfavourofthefifthrespondentinrespectofboth
theleases.TheallegedtransferleasedeedexecutedbyM/s.Blaze
Granitesinfavourofthefifthrespondentisforatermoffiveyearsi.e. unexpiredportionoforiginallease.Itisnotthecaseofthefifth
respondentortheGovernmentofAndhraPradeshthatthetransfer
leasedeedisregistered.EventheGovernmentdidnotspecifically pleadthattherewasaregisteredtransferlease.Evenassumingfora momentthattherewasatransferleasedeed,suchunregisteredtransfer leasedeedcannotbereliedupontoclaimrightorenforceanyright underorinrespectofsuchlease.
ItisthecontentionofthelearnedCounselappearingforthefifth respondentthatthoughtheleasedeediscompulsorilyregisterable documentunderSection7oftheRegistration Act,908,stillitcanbe relieduponforcollateralpurposeasrequiredunderSection49ofthe said Act. Section7[I][d]oftheRegistration Act,908assubstituted by the AndhraPradeshAct4of999,cameintoforeéwitheffectfrom :\tuiredbySection7orby'anyprovisionsoftheTransferof 't5882toberegisteredshall-*zseeore
{alafter:anyimmovablepropertycomprisedtherein,or
Sh]conferanypowertoadopt;
ORIGINAL
ASNo26of20I05]QZ
igond [c]bereceivedasevidenceoranytransactionaffectingsuch propertyorconferringsuchpower.
Unlessithasbeenregistered.
Providedthatanunregistereddocumentaffectingimmovable [propertyandrequiredbythisAct,or the Transferof Property Act,882toberegisteredmaybereceivedasevidenceofa contractinasuitforspecificperformanceunderChapterIIofthe SpecificReliefAct,877,orasevidenceofanycollateral transactionnotrequiredtobeexecutedbyregistereddocument”.
Fromtheaboveprovision,itisclearthatadocumentwhichis compulsorilyregisterable,ifnotregistered,willnotaffectthe immovablepropertycomprisedthereininanymanner.But,it canbereceivedasevidenceundertwocircumstancesviz[[]ina suitforspecificperformance;[2]incollateraltransactionwhich isincidentallyconnectedwiththetransactionaffectingthe immovableproperty.
Section35oftheIndianStampAct,899readsthus:
“Instrumentsnotdulystampedinadmissibleinevidence,etc:- Noinstrumentchargeablewithdutyshallbeadmittedin evidenceforanypurposebyanypersonhavingbylawor consentofpartiesauthoritytoreceiveevidence,orshallbeacted upon,registeredorauthenticatedbyanysuchpersonorbyany publicofficer,unlesssuchinstrumentisdulystamped”.
Fromtheaboveprovision,itisclearthataninstrumentwhichis notdulystampedisinadmissibleinevidenceandcannotbe acteduponorusedforanypurpose.Section35oftheIndian StampAct,899doesnotcontainanyprovisosimilartoproviso inSection49oftheRegistrationAct,908enablingthe instrumenttobeusedasevidenceofanycollateralpurpose”
LearnedCounselforthepetitionerreliedonadecisionin Anthonyv.K.C.Ittoop&Sonsandothers,2000[5]ALD38[SC] =AIR2000SC3523,whereinitisheldthus:[Para6} “takingadifferentviewwouldbecontrarytotherealitywhen partiesclearlyintendedtocreatealeasethoughthedocument --whichtheyexecutedhasnotgoneintotheprocessesof
registration.Thatlacunahadaffectedthevalidityofthe
docitinént,butwhathadhappenedbetweenthepartiesin
resfiéctoF
kth 2dingoneyearwascreated.'-SéconcYe haeuselesssofaras..¢m:forthe.leaseis’,
Nonethelessthepresumptionthatalease,not
vineyearstoodcreatedbyconductofpartiésremairis
irtted”.wih00020.4di
AOS:malate|हे oe Evenitaleaseislessthanoneyear,itrequitesregistrationinthe'
“StateofAndraPradesh.InviewofUsabove,decision,”the’
ORIGINAL
(4ASNo26of20I0
transferleasedeedisuselessinsofarascreationoftransferis
concerned.Thetransferleasedeedsexecutedinfavourofthe
fifthrespondentbyM/s.BlazeGranitescannotbeusedforany
otherpurpose”.
HealsorelieduponadecisionmadeinthecaseofDelhiMotorCompanyand
othersv.U.A.Basrurkar[dead]byhislegalrepresentativesandothers,AIR968
SupremeCourt794.WhereinHon’bleSupremeCourtwhiledealingwiththe
provisionsunderSection06and07ofTransferofPropertyAct,whenleasedeedis anunregisteredhadheldasunder:
“Thefirstpointurgedonbehalfofthefirmwasthat,inthiscase,there
wasacompletedsub-lease,butitdidnotrequireregistrationfortwo
reasons.Thefirstreasonadvancedwasthattheleasewasnotevidenced
bythedocumentsExts.P.I,P.2andP.3only,butwas,infact,completed
subsequentlywhen,aftertheresolutionoftheBoardofDirectorsofthe
Company,theCompanygavepossessionoftheleasedpropertytothe
firmonoraboutthestApril,950.Thesecondreasonwasthat,inany
case,thisleasewasnotaleasefromyeartoyearorforanyterm
exceedingoneyearorreservingayearlyrent,sothatSec.07ofthe
TransferofPropertyActwasnotapplicableandregistrationwasnot
compulsory.Thesesubmissionsfailbecausetheleaseasrelieduponby
thefirm,hastobeheldtobealeaseofimmovablepropertyforaterm
exceedingoneyear,andsuchaleaseisfullygovernedby$.07ofthe
TransferofPropertyAct.Thefirmitselfcameforwardwiththecase
thattherightsthatwerebeingclaimedwereunderaleaseandthelease
wasinrespectofimmovablepropertyconsistingofthethreeportions
oftheScindiaHousewhichhavebeenmentionedabove.Itwas,
however,urgedthatthisleasewasnotforanyfixedtermatallandwas foranindefiniteperiod,sothatitcouldnotbeheldtobealeasefrom yeartoyeareither.Itwasfurthersubmittedthatyearlyrenthadnot beenreservedinrespectofthislease.Eventhesesubmissionswere madeonthebasisthatthetermsoftheleasehavetobeascertained fromthethreedocumentsExts.P.l,P.2andP.3whichwerereliedupon bythefirmtoclaim thereliefinthesuit.Itappearstousthat,ifthese documentsareproperlyinterpretedaninferencenecessarilyfollows that thelease,ifany,broughtintoexistencebythesedocumentswas certainlyforaperiodexceedingoneyear.Sincereliancewasplacedon thesedocumentsonbehalfofthefirmtourgethattherewasa
completedlease,learnedcounselforthefirmwas.asked'tépointoutthe
provisionwhichfixedtherentpayabléin-respectofthe.leased
spoperty.Theonlyprovision,onwhich.hézéliedto’show-thatrenthad,
i"fact,beenagreeduponandfixed;waspara.ofExt-P.3which
conEinsnotesonagreementdated22¢'February,950.Thatparagraph
Jisasfollows:-mi
iiProfitshareofpartyNo.lwould bs0percentofnetprofitci
/NewDelhibusinessonlyandwill.besettledat theendoftheIs ingofthefinancialyearwhichwouldbe:30'June,T957”.
Ay.
ORIGINAL
3B
ASNo26of20I0
i
Acceptingthissubmissionthatthisparagraphlays down therent payable,itisclearthat,underit,therentpayableforthefirsttime wouldbe0percentofthenetprofitsearnedbythefirminitsNew Delhibusinessupto30"June,95.Theperiodwouldnaturallybegin onthedateonwhichtheleasecommenced.Thatdate,accordingtothe firmitselfwasIstApril,950.Fromthesefactsitfollowsthatwhenthe rentistobepaidforthefirsttime,itwouldbeanamountof0percent ofthenetprofitsearnedbythefirminitsNewDelhibusinessbetween ]8April,950and30%June,95,and,naturallyenough,therentwill beinrespectofthesameperiod.Thisterm,therefore,clearlylaiddown thattheveryfirstpaymentofrentwastobeforaperiodofoneyear andthreemonths,sothat,eventhoughnofurtherperiodforthe continuanceoftheleaseafter30%June,95waslaiddown,theleaseat leastmaderentpayableforthefirstperiodoffifteenmonths.Thelease was,therefore,atleastforaperiodoffifteenmonthsandconsequently, foraperiodexceedingoneyear.Section07oftheTransferofProperty Actwas,thus,clearlyapplicableandsuchaleasecouldnothavebeen validlymade,exceptunderaregisteredinstrument.Admittedly,there wasnoregistrationofthedocumentswhichconstitutedtheleaseand, consequently,thefirmcouldnotclaimanyrightsonthebasisofthis leaseevidencedbyunregistereddocuments.
Learnedcounseltriedtourgethat,sinceinthesedocumentsnodefinite periodfortheleasewasmentioned,weshouldholdthatSection06of theTransferofPropertyActwasapplicableandtheleasebeingin respectofimmovablepropertyforpurposesotherthanagriculturalor manufacturingmustbedeemedtobealeasefrommonthtomonth.We areunabletoacceptthissubmission,becausenoneofthedocuments, onwhichreliancehasbeenplacedonbehalfofthefirmtoprovethe lease,containsanyclauseindicatingthatthetenancywastobefrom monthtomonthortherentwaspayablemonthly.Infact,theindication frompara.ofExt.P.3quotedaboveisthattherentwastobepayable annually,sothatthecontractitselfseemstogiveanindicationthatit wastobealeasefromyeartoyearandannualrentwaspayable.These circumstances,however,areimmaterial,becausewehavealready indicatedearlierourfindingthatthisleasewasatleastforaminimum periodof45monthsandconsequentlySection07oftheTransferof PropertyActbecomesapplicableirrespectiveofthequestionwhetherit wasaleasefrommonthtomonthorfromyeartoyear.TheHighCourt was,therefore,quitecorrectinholdingthatonthebasisofthisleasethe reliefsclaimedbythefirmcouldnotbegrantedtoit.
Inthesecircumstances,anargumentwasputforwardonbehalfofthe firmthat,thoughthiscontracttoleasehadnotbeenregistered,thefirm ‘glaimpossessionunderitinviewoftheprovisionsofSection53A
ooofPropertyAct,because,inthiscasetheCompany
edfromenforcingagainstthefirmanyrightinrespect
Nowhichthefirmhadalreadytakenpossession,viz.,
=hav-Roomand aportion oftheBalcony.In ouropinion,
entiateedsonanincorrectinterpretationofSection53A
at_sectionisonlymeanttobringaboutabaragainst htsbyalessorinrespectofpropertyof whichthe takenpossession,butdoesnotgiveanyrightto the possessionortoclaimanyotherrightsonthebasisofan unre;lease.Section53AoftheTransferofPropertyActisonly
vailable-as adefencetoalesseeandnotxeeco.
ringarightonthe
ORIGINAL
46ASNo26of2020
basisofwhichthelesseecanclaimrightsagainstthelessor.This
interpretationofSection53AwasclearlylaiddownbytheirLordships
ofthePrivyCouncilinProbodhKumarDasv.DantmaraTeaCo.66Ind
App293=[AIR940PC]”.
HealsorelieduponadecisionmadeinthecaseofM/s.BajajAutoLimitedv.
BehariLalKohli,AIR989SC806.WhereinHon’bleSupremeCourtwhiledealing
withSection49ofRegistrationAct,hadheldasunder:-
“Thecontentionofthelearnedcounselfortherespondentthatthe
aforesaidclausecannotbelookedintoforwantofregistrationofthe
leasedeedappearstobecorrect.Reliancehasbeenplacedonthe
observationsofFazalAli,J.inSachindraMohanGhosev.Ramjash
Agarwalla,AIR932Patna97thatifadecreepurportingtocreatea
leaseisinadmissibleinevidenceforwantofregistration,noneofthe
termsoftheleasecanbeadmittedinevidenceandthattousea
documentforthepurposeofprovinganimportantclauseintheleaseis
notusingitasacollateralpurpose.
Thelearnedcounselfortheappellantattemptedtomeetthepointby
sayingthatsofartheconsentofthelandlordpermittingsub-lettingis concerned,itdoesnotrequireregistrationandtheclause,therefore,
mustbeexceptedfromtherequirementofregistrationandconsequent
exclusionfromevidence.Wedonotseeanyforceinthisargument.The
questionwhetheralesseeisentitledtocreateasub-leaseornotis undoubtedlyatermofthetransactionofleaseandifitisincorporated inthedocumentitcannotbedisassociatedfromtheleaseand consideredseparatelyinisolation.Ifadocumentisinadmissiblefor non-registration,allitstermsareinadmissibleincludingtheone dealing withlandlord’spermissiontohistenant to sub-let.Itfollows thattheappellantcannot,inthepresentcircumstances,beallowedto relyupontheclauseinhisunregisteredleasedeed”.
HealsorelieduponadecisionmadeinthecaseofSmt.Shantabaiv.Stateof
Bombayandothers,AIR958SC532[V45C79].WhereinHon’bleSupremeCourt whiledealingwiththenon-registrationdocumentanddealwithSection7[|][व and49ofRegistrationActandSection3and05ofTransferofPropertyActhadheld
na4,
thaextentthematteriscoveredbythedecisionin953SCR476at
|;59883:[AIR953SC08at9.0][8]andcleusthelaterdecisionin955-2
ae
ORIGINAL
ASNo26of200772222
)
SCR99atpp.922and923:[(S)AIR956sc7ATP.8AND9][A], whereitwasheldthatatransactionofthiskindamountstoalicenseto enteronthelandcoupledwithagranttocut certaintreesonitand carryawaythewood.InEnglanditisaprofitaprendrebecauseitisa grantoftheproduceofthesoil“likegrass,orturvesortrees”.Sec2 Halsbury’sLawsofEngland[SimondsEdition]p.522Note[m].Itisnot a“transferofrighttoenjoytheimmovableproperty”itself[S.05, T.P.Act],butagrantofarighttoenteruponthelandandtakeawaya partoftheproduceofthesoilfromit.Inalease,oneenjoysthe propertybuthasnorighttotakeitaway.Inaprofitaprendreonehasa licencetoenterontheland,notforthepurposeofenjoyingit,butfor removingsomethingfromit,namely,apartoftheproduceofthesoil.
Theresultisthat,thoughsuchtreesascanberegardedasstanding timberatthedateofthedocument,bothbecauseoftheirsizeandgirth andalsobecauseoftheintentiontofellatanearlydate,wouldbe moveablepropertyforthepurposesoftheTransferofPropertyand RegistrationActs,theremainingtreesthatarealsocoveredbythegrant willbeimmovableproperty,andasthetotalvalueisRs.26,000,the deedrequiresregistration.Beingunregistered,itpassesnotitleor interestand,therefore,asinAnandaBehera’scase[A],thepetitioner hasnofundamentalrightwhichshecanenforce”.
Hefinallyresthisargumentsurgingthattheimpugnedjudgmentanddecree oftrialcourtisnotsustainableeitherunderlawandfactsandisliabletobesetaside andprayedtoallowtheappealfiledbythedefendantNo..
2.InreplytotheargumentssubmittedbythedefendantNo.I,thelearned counselfortheplaintiffshadsubmittedthatthetrialcourtafterconsideringthe pleadings,evidenceandmaterialonrecord,hadrightlydecreedthesuitinfavourof theplaintiffsandagainstthedefendantsandtherearenogroundstointerferewith theimpugnedjudgmentanddecreeoftrialcourt.Hefurtherarguedthatitisnotthat theplaintiffsmisleadingthecourtbutinfactthedefendant१०.himselfmisleading
ia0{Cssee
theéourtani9३७१०aretryingtomisleadthecourtbywayofallegationsone
LoS7rfal A.
cal regularlyandeverheaverredthatthedefendantNo.!is readytodeposittherentsin
ORIGINAL
8ASNo26of200
courtandheisalwaysreadytopaytherentstotheplaintiffsbuttheplaintiffstofile thesuithadstoppedcollectingrentsfromthedefendantNo.i,whichclearlyshows thatthedefendantNo.ladmittingthelandlord-tenantrelationshipbetweenplaintiffs andhimself,hencehiscannotbequestionedthetitleoftheplaintiffsoverthesuit
scheduleproperty.Hefurtherarguedthatthecitedjudgmentssubmittedbythe
defendantNo.larenotrelevantandapplicabletothepresentcasefactsand
circumstances.Hefinallyresthisargumentsurgingthattheimpugnedjudgmentand decreewaspassedbythelowercourtafterconsideringanddecidingtheinvolved issuesinthesuitandjudgmentofthelowercourtistobeupheldbydismissingthe appeal.
3.Nowthepointsthatarisefordeterminationinthisappealareas follows:
4.WhetherthedefendantNo.lhadmadeoutvalidandsufficientgroundstoset
asidethejudgmentanddecreedated2.07.200passedinOS.No.3I/2005by
theJuniorCivilJudge,Adilabad?
2.Whetherthejudgmentanddecreeofthetrialcourtcannotbesustainedunder factsandlaw?
3.Towhatrelief?
4.InthepresentappealsuitinAS.No.26/200thedefendantNo.filed interlocutoryapplicationinI[A.No.206/205underorderRule0[2]r/wSection 5ofCodeofCivilProcedureseekingtoimpleadtheproposedpartyi.e.theStateof
TelanganarepresentedbytheDistrictCollector,AdilabadasrespondentNo.5and thesamewasdismissedbythiscourtvideitsordersdated05.0.205andaggrieved
racedlog205,thedefendantNo.]preferredCivilRevisionPetition
a
atleadingtothepresent=heeandpleadingsandrival
=
ORIGINAL
%१2
4४‘No260//2040(9“0
pleadingsofboththesidesarealreadystatedsupraindetailandhencethesameare we notre-stated.
b)Theundisputedandadmittedfactsareas under:“ThedefendantNo.l hadapproachedtheplaintiffs andenteredintoaleaseagreementwiththemin respectofsuitschedulepropertyanareaadmeasuring000sq.yardsinpremises
No.7--33/B,plotNo.37Aand aroomtherein,abettingtoNationalHighwayNo.7
OppositetoRestHouse,Adilabad.Thedefendant'९०.]wasgrantedRetailPetroland
HSDoilOutletdealershipundertheDefencecategorybytheM/s.IndianOil
Corporation,Secunderabadundersocialobjectiveschemevideitsletterdated 25.08.989,anddefendantNo.wasinneedforopenlandforsettingupofaretail petroloutletatAdilabad.Atthisstage,theplaintiffshereinhaveofferedandoutlet thesuitschedulepropertytohimbyenteringleaseagreementdated0.08.990and 2.03.992.Theleaseperiodwasfor5yearswithaprovisiontoextendtheleasefor furtherperiodandenhancementofrental@0%forevery4years.Accordinglythe defendantNo.paidtotheplaintiffsamonthlyrentofRs.5,000/-fromAugust,999 toJuly,994,Rs.5,500/-permonthfromAugust,994toJuly,998,Rs.6,050/-per monthfromAugust,998toJuly,2002andRs.6,655/-fromAugust,2004andintotal theplaintiffshavecollectedasumofRs.9,54,20/-towardsrentsfromthedefendant
No.l.Bydenyingthetitleoftheplaintiffsovertheleasedoutlandi.e.suit schedule
property,thedefendantNo.Iissuednoticeaa24.08.2004totheplaintiffsand
defendant०.] filedasuitforrecoveryofsaidpaidamountofRs.9,54,20/-towards rentbyhimtotheplaintiffsbeforeSeniorCivilJudge,AdilabadvideOS.No.42/2004.
BeoPaze८200०)
¢PST,town‘Adilabaghia
‘=pJ
22009::2£2>>
०);Thecaseoftheplaintiffsrelevantforveeig,theseissues,inbrief,”
ORIGINAL
20ASNo26of2040
isasfollows:“Theplaintiffistheownerandpossessoroftheopenlandsituatedon,
theNationalHighwayNo.7,OppositetoRestHousebearingpremisesNo.7--33/B,
plotNo.37Aareaadmeasuring000sq.yardsofAdilabadtown.Aftergettingsuit
schedulepropertyonlease,thedefendantNo.]setupthepetrolpumpinthesuit landandrentwasfixedtobepaidonorbefore70ofeverycalendarmonth.Sincethe dateofleaseagreement,thedefendantNo.]hasbeensuccessfullyrunninghisretail petroloutletontheleasedoutlandofplaintiffs.Atthetimeofdateoffilingofsuit, thedefendantaccordingtoenhancementofrentconditionhadbeenpayingrentof
Rs.6,475/-permonthandpaidtherenttillAugust,2004andlateronstoppaying rent.ThedefendantNo.withoutpermissionoftheplaintiffhasgiventhecontrolof thepumptothedefendantNo.2whoisrunningtheaffairsofpetrolpumpunderhis control.Whenthe5yearsperiodofleaseagreementisenforcedandtheperiodis goingtobecompletedinthemonthofAugust,2005,tothesurprisedofplaintiffs theyreceivedlegalnoticesentbythedefendantNo.dated24.08.2004withulterior motiveandmalafideintentiondenyingthetitleoftheplaintiffsovertheleasedout landandsubsequentlyhefiledacivilsuitagainsttheplaintiffsbeforeSeniorCivil
Judge’sCourt,AdilabadinOS.No.42/2004.Inviewofdenyingthetitleoverthe
leasedoutlandbythedefendant(०.inthenoticedated24.08.2004theplaintiffgot issuedlegalnoticeforterminateanddeterminethetenancyon22..2004,whichis receivedbythedefendants.Thedefendantsneithercaretoreplynortovacatethe suitscheduleproperty.Theconduct ofdefendantnottovacatethesuitschedule propertyamountstowillfuldefaultandheisdeliberatelycontinuewiththetenancy afterbreachingtheconditionbydenialoftitleoverthepremisesandnotpayingrent ye,
५०२04.‘Thedefendantisunderobligationtovacatethesaidpremisesof
ORIGINAL
ASNo26of20i0शव225
\\
fromthedateofsuittillthedateofevictionandalsotodirecttopayarrearsofrent NA dueamountofRs.32,375/-whichisfortheperiodfromSeptember,2004toJanuary, 2005i.e.5monthsandcostsofthesuit.
d)Incontrast,thedefendantNo.ldenied thetitleoftheplaintiffsoverthe suitschedulepropertybutadmittedthecase of theplaintiffsthatheobtainedsuit schedulepropertyonleaseagreementfromplaintiffsbyenteredintoleaseagreement andleaseperiodwasagreedtobefor5years.Thedefendant(०.]also admitted thattheleaseperiodwas5yearswithaprovisiontoextendtheleaseforfurther periodandenhancementofrental@0%foreveryfouryears,buthedeniedthe ownershipofplaintiffsoverthesuitschedulepropertyandcontendedthatthe plaintiffsbyposingthemselvesasabsoluteownersandpossessorsandshownhim fabricateddocumentsinsupportoftheirownershipandaccordinglycollecting monthlyrentsfromhimandtheplaintiffshavecollectedasumofRs.9,54,20/- towardsrentsfromhimfromAugust,999totillthefilingofsuit.Thedefendant ॥१०.]furtherpleadedthattheleaseandotherdocumentsweresubmittedbyhimto theJointCollector,Adilabad,Commissioner,Municipality, Adilabadwithdetailed layoutplanandafterduephysicalsurveyofthepremisesbytheRevenue
Administrationvideitsreportdated06.05.992andapprovalbythecompetent authority,theJointCollectorissuedlicenseNo.29/9tohimon8.04.99]andNOC wasalsoissuedtohimon27.0.990as requiredunderRule44ofPetroleumRule 976andunderRule50oftheArmsActrules968forsettinguparetailpetroleum outletandwasrunningthepetroleumoutletinthesuitschedulepremisesand has beenpayingTentals.totheplaintiffs.Hefurtherpleadedthat,suddenlythe जेSfra =
antNo.alleging
riedanoticedated22.04.995todéfen #*ap aN; iA
zfoad:and.pathandcons'
yrs cancelledtheNOCandalsoLicensewithoutpriornotice.and-stoppedhisbusiness.-
theHon'bleHighcourtofA.Phas०८aeoperaist
However,
aUScore
ORIGINAL
22ASNo26of2040
inWP.No.4405/995videitsorderdated6.06.995andaccordinglythebusinessis
beingcontinued.HefurtherpleadedthattheAssistantDirectorSurveyandLand
Records,Adilabad,MandalRevenueOfficer,Adilabadvidetheirreportsfiledby
clearlyआदिthatthelandundertheoccupationbythedefendant।०.॥for
settingupthepetrolpumpisaGovernmentlandandonverificationofthetitleofthe plaintiffs,fromtheRegistrationofficeitwasfoundthattheplaintiffshavenotitleon
thesuitland.Hefurtherpleadedthattheplaintiffscollectedrentsbyduping
defendantNo.landhehastofacehardshipforalltheseyearsandtherebythe
defendantिठ.filedasuitforrecoveryofanamountofRs.9,54,20/-whichwas
paidbyhimtotheplaintiffstowardsrentbeforetheSeniorCivilJudge’sCourt,
AdilabadinOS.No.42/2004andthesameispendingasonthedateoffilingofhis writtenstatement.Hefurtherpleadedthatinthesaidsuithealsofiledinterlocutory applicationunderorderXXXIXruleCPCagainsttheplaintifffornotcollectingthe rentfromthedefendant१०.,andsubsequentlythesaidpetitionwasdismissedand laterhewentinappealbeforeHon'bleHighCourtofAP,Hyderabadandthesameis
pending.Hefurtherpleadedthathewenttotheplaintiffstopaytherentbut
plaintiffsrefusedtotaketherentstatingthatthematterispendingbeforethecourt andhenceonlyaftertheorderofthecourthewillcollecttherentfromhim.He furtherpleadedthatheisreadyto deposittherentinthecourtandthe plaintiffs in ordertofilethepresentsuithasstoppedcollectingtherentfromthedefendantNo.I.
He furtherpleadedthatthesuitisnotmaintainableandsincealreadysuitin
OSNo.42/2004filedbyhimispendingbeforetheSeniorCivilJudge’sCourt,
Adilabadinrespect ofthesamesubjectmatterbetweenthepartiesandhencethe presentisrilisigloobestayedandfinally,hesoughtfordismissalofthesuit.The
ApionहैNoan
ora" vis‘esetexparteandremainedexparte.3aacae25२५%
“f५३०200
/iB
J -foralevidenceadducedbytheparties,theplaintiffNo.I Fd2/
niged43)landinhissaepi4५.‘i
chiefwhichwastakeninthe
fe
wee
ORIGINAL
23
AS.No26 of20I0a
saat rs_formofsolemnswornaffidavithadreiteratedhispleadedcaseandtranscribedthe sameintodirectevidence.TheplaintiffsmarkedEx.AltoEx.A8ontheirbehalf.PW inhiscross-examinationhadadmittedthatbeforefilingofOS.No.42/2004onthefile ofSeniorCivilJudge,Adilabad,thedefendantspaidtherentsbutafterfilingofthe saidsuitthedefendantsstoppedpayingtherent.Therestofthecrossexaminationof
PWIisnothingbutsuggestionsandhedeniedthesuggestionswhichweremadein thelinesofpleadedcaseofdefendantNo.l.PWIspecificallydeniedthattheland whichisgivenonleaseistheGovernmentland;thatthedefendantsareregularly payingtherentforthelast2years;thatthedefendantNo.]isintendingtopaythe rentsregularlyasthepetrolbunkoperatorsisnotreadythemoveablefromoneplace toanotherforshiftingthepetrolbunk;thatonlyharasseddefendantNo.]hefoisted thepresentsuit.Healsodeniedthesuggestionthatheisnotpassingonreceiptfor therentreceivedastherentreceiptbookdepositedbytheplaintiffinOS.No.42/2004 onthefileofSeniorCivilJudge,AdilabadwhoisdefendantNo.]inthissuit.From thetestimonyofPWI,itclearlyestablishesthattheplaintiffasownerofthesuit schedulepropertyletoutthesametodefendantNo.onmonthlyrentofRs.5,000/- permonthforaperiodof5yearsandalsoexecutedleasedeedagreementdated 0.08.990and2.03.992andtheybothfurtheragreedforenhancementofrent@ 0%afterevery4 yearsandthedefendantshadbeenpayingmonthlyrents tothe plaintifftillAugust,2004andthelandrentpaid@Rs.6,650/-permonthand thereafterthedefendantNo.stoppedthepaymentofrents.ThedefendantNo.Idid notposedanyquestionormadeanyobjectionwithregardtomarkingcertifiedcopy ofleaseagreementdated0.08.990andcertifiedcopyofagreementdated2.03.992 Do!ae bebalfoftheplaintiffs,one,Sri ycsLZ
ORIGINAL
csASNo26of2040
ofdefendantNo.l,DW]inhisexaminationinchiefwhichwastakenintheformof
swornsolemnaffidavithesupportedtheversionofdefendantघिए.andhe
specificallydeposedthattheallegationsmadebytheplaintiffsaredeniedandthe suitisnotmaintainableeitheronfactsorbasedonlawandliabletobedismissedas
barredbylimitation.Hefurtherstatedthaton08.03.2009hepaidanamountof
Rs.77,400/-toplaintiffNo.Iie.namelyRaghunathandhealsopaidthepropertytax
inrespectofthesuitpropertytoMunicipalCouncil,Adilabadvidereceipt
No.0800039dated05.03.2009.DW]triedtoestablishthathehimselfwenttothe
plaintiffstopaytherentbutplaintiffsrefusedtotaketherentstatingthatthematter ispendingbeforethecourt;henceonlyaftertheordersofthecourthewillcollectthe rentfromhim.DWfurtherstatedthatheisreadytodeposittherentinthecourt andtheplaintiffsinordertofilethesuithavestoppedcollectingtherentfromhim.
HehadcategoricallystatedthatG.NRaoiedefendantNo.lhasmadehuge
investmentforthepetrolpumpandifthedefendant०.]isvacated,thepeopleof
Adilabdputtoheavylosswhichcannotbecompensatedbyanymeansandthatthe
suitisliabletobedismissedonthegroundoflegalissueoflimitationapartfrom otherlegalpoints.DWIinhiscrossexaminationhadstatedthatheisworkingas
ManageroftheG.N.Raopetrolpumpforthelast5yearsandheispaidRs.5,000/- pe*monthbythedefendantNo.l.Hefurtherstatedthathedidnotfileany appointmentletterissuedbydefendantNo.I.Healsostatedthathedidnotpayany providentfundsubscriptionoutofhissalary.Thedefendant[४०.]is alsonotpaying anyeniloyeesubscriptiontowardshisprovidentfund.However,DWIfurther statedthatheispayingincometaxregularlyforthelast5yearsbuthedidnotsubmit
Depstocumensaryevidencetoshowthathe isan Incometaxassesseeand paying
2४ df ry Ti
गए४१nteeredthatthiscaseisfiledregardinglanddisputes.DWI
hensthereiseverychanceof
ORIGINAL
arAS.No26of20I025ami
__fireaccidentsandthereisaroadonthetwosidesofpetrolbunkandresidential housestowardsremainingside.Healsoadmittedthattheadjacenthousesofthe petrolpumparepronetocatchingholdoffireifanyfireaccidentoccurred.Inhisre- examinationDWIalsoadmittedthatjustabuttingtheG.N.Raopetrolpumponits backsidethereisanopenplaceandabuttingtheopenplaceonitsbackside,there areresidentialhousesandonlyafterclearingthenormsofdepartmentoffire services,theCivilsuppliesDepartmentissueslicense.Inhisre-crossexamination,he statedthathedidnotsubmittheclearancecertificateofthepetrolpumpfromthe departmentoffireservesandhedidnotfileanylicenseofCivilsuppliesdepartment.
TherestofthecrossexaminationofDWIisnothingbutsuggestionsmadeinthe linesofpleadedcaseoftheplaintiffsandhedeniedthesame.Itispertinenttonote herethatthedefendantNo.Ididnotchoosetoenterintowitnessboxtofacecross examinationbytheplaintiffsandtosubstantiatehispleadedcase.Thetwo documentsmarkedthroughDW]arerentbookwhich070onbehalfofdefendant
No.!paidtoplaintiff0.whoislandlordofthesiteoftheG.N.Raopetrolpump andothermunicipalitytaxreceiptofG.N.Raopetrolpumpfortheperiod..2007 to3.03.2009wereexhibitedasEx.BlandEx.B2respectively.[90॥didnotdenythe title oftheplaintiffstothesuitschedulepropertyand his testimonywouldclearly establishesthatthedefendantNo.Iadmittingthetitleoftheplaintiffsoverthesuit schedulepropertyandhehadbeenpaidrentsregularlyuptofilingofsuitin
OS.No.42/2004bydefendantNo.].
g)FromthetestimonyofPWIandDW,itestablishesthatthedefendant hehadtakenthesuitschedulepropertyonleasefromtheplaintiffsunderlease \~
_agreementdied0.08.990and2.03.992whichweremarkedasEx.Al‘andsEX:A2
ee;/प्र
~-0%.enhane:ament/ofrentafter4fouryears.Itisanadmittedfai
ORIGINAL
26ASNo26of2040
heusedtopayrentregularlytill2004iefilingofsuitinOS.No.42/2004onthefileof
SeniorCivilJudge’sCourt,AdilabadbydefendantNo.Iasperhisowncontention.
Whereastheplaintiffs’contentionisthatthedefendantNo.stoppedthepaymentof rentsafterAugust,2004.Butagainsttheirownpleadingsthedefendant०.]through
909५7triedtoestablishthaton08.03.2009DWpaidanamountofRs.77,400/-to
plaintiffNo.Iie.Raghunathtowardsrent.Onperusalof968rentalbookwould
showthatoneentryisthere,butthereisnosignatureofrecipientie.eitherof plaintiffsandnoonesignatureorotherparticularswhetherthesaidRs.77,400/-
receivedon08,.03.2009wastowardswhichpurpose.OnperusalofEx.B2property
taxreceiptwouldshowthatDW]remittedanamountofRs.9,82/-totheMunicipal
AdministrationDepartmenton05.03.2009towardsmunicipaltaxinrespectof
H.No.7-I-33/Bfortheperiodfrom02.04.2007to3.03.2009andheremittedthesaid
amountinthenameofremitter,Sri.RaghunathMittal,S/o.Shambunath,R/o.
Bhukthapuri.e.plaintiff०.]herein.
h)Comingtothedocumentaryevidenceofplaintiffs,theplaintiffs
throughPWImarkedEx.AltoEx.A8.OnperusalofEx.AI,certifiedcopyoflease
agreementdated0.08.990wouldshowthatthisdocumentwasearliermarkedas
Ex.A2inOS.No.42/2004onthefileofSeniorCivilJudge’sCourt,Adilabadby plaintiffthereinwhoisnoneotherthandefendantNo.lhereinwhenhewas examinedas000]on.08.2005inthesaidsuit.ThisEx.Alalsorevealsthat this documentisleasedeedexecutedbyandbetweenplaintiffanddefendantNo.]herein inrespectofsuitscheduleproperty as defendantNo.hadtakenthesuitschedule property_onleaseandbothpartiesenteredintoleasedeedonthetermsand
reVeals-thatthisdocumentwasexecutedby andche.
enplaintiffsanddefendant
ORIGINAL
ASNo26of20I027Z
.\i “25No.]hereinfortakingsuitschedulepropertyonleaseby defendantNo.landthe said leaseagreedontermsandconditionsmentionedtherein.OnperusalofEx.A3, legalnoticeissuedbydefendantNo.ldated24.08.2004wouldshowthatthe defendantNo.]gotissuedthislegalnoticetoplaintiffNo.landthecontentstherein arenothingbutreiterationofhispleadedcaseandhecalledupon the plaintiffNo.I torepaytherentswhichhavebeencollectedforthelast4yearsamountingto
Rs.9,54,20/-since990till27.08.2004[thedateoflegalnotice]togetherwithinterest @24%perannumwithin5daysfromthedateofreceiptofthesaidlegalnotice.On perusalofEx.A4,officecopyoflegalnoticegotissuedbyplaintiffNo.Itodefendant ०0.]dated08.09.2004wouldshowthattheplaintiffNo.gotissuedthislegal notice tothedefendantNo.]throughhisadvocateandthecontentsthereinarenothingbut pleadedcaseofplaintiffsandwhereintheplaintiff onsubsequentlygotmentioned thatsincethedefendantNo.deniedthetitleoftheplaintiffsovertheleasedoutland andasit amountstoattracttheproceedingforevictionofhimfromtheleasedlandof plaintiffandtherefore,hecalledupon the defendantstovacatetheleasedoutland withina monthfromthedateofreceiptofthenotice.Onperusal ofEx.A5,copy of plaint,inOSNo.42/2004onthefile ofSeniorCivilJudge’sCourt, Adilabadwhich wasfiledbythedefendantNo.]againstthe plaintiffs andanotherseekingrecovery ofmoney,wouldshowthatthedefendantNo.IfiledthesuitinOS.No.42/2004on thefileofSeniorCivilJudge’sCourt,Adilabadagainsttheplaintiffhereinand anotherseekingforrecoveryofmoneyofRs.9,54,20/-togetherwithinterest@24% perannumtillthedateofrepaymenttohimbythedefendantsthereinwhoincludes plaintiffsNo.land2 herein.Thecontents of Ex.A5i.e.plaintinOS.No.42/2004is nothiigbutiterationofpleadedcaseofthedefendantNo.l,OnperusalofEx.A6,3
a2aadae~~
/
“Yenkatapuram,Tirmulgherry,SecunderabadandIndianOilCorporation,Naspur».
ORIGINAL
28ASNo26of200
House,Himayathnagar,Hyderabad.OnperusalofEx.sA7andA8,certifiedcopyof
judgmentinOS.No.42/2004andcertifiedcopyofdecreeinOS.No.42/2004would
showthatthesuitinOS.No.42/2004onthefileofSeniorCivilJudge’sCourt,
Adilabadwasdismissedwithcostsonmeritsvidejudgmentanddecreedated
24.0.2006againstthedefendantNo.hereinandinfavourofplaintiffherein.
i)ThelearnedcounselforthedefendantNo.lhereincamewithnew
contentionthattheEx.AlandEx.A2,leasedeeddated0.8.990and2.03.992are
notadmissibleunderlawandthecontentsthereincannotbelookedinto;asbothare unregisteredleasedeedsandasperthecontentstheleaseperiodisaboveoneyear ie.[5years.Herelieduponcitedjudgmentsreferredabove.Itispertinenttonote herethatthedefendant(०.hereinhimselfadmittedlyfiledasuitinOS.N0.42/2004 onthefileofSeniorCivilJudge’sCourt,Adilabadandinthatsuithefiledthesetwo
documentsandmarkedbyhimwhenhewasexaminedasPWIon22.08.2005as
Ex.A2andEx.A3thereinrespectively.Theplaintiffhereingotcertifiedcopiesof
thosedocumentsandfiledinthepresentcaseandmarkedthesameasEx.Aland
Ex.A2respectively.Itistrueasperthelawifleaseagreementorleasedeedis executedinrespectofimmovablepropertyforaperiodofmorethanoneyearthe saiddocumentsshallberegisteredasperSection7ofRegistrationAct.Intheinstant case,thereisnodisputewithregardtotheexecutionofthosetwoleasedeedswhich
weremarkedasEx.AlandEx.A2hereinanddefendantNo.]himselfadmittedthe
contentsofthosedocumentsbywayofmarkingthesameinthesuitwhichwasfiled
byhiminOS.No.42/2004onthefileofSeniorCivilJudge’sCourt,Adilabadand
hence_-he--eannotreprobatethattheplaintiffsexecutedthosedocumentsby ५Yan.)a
peePortisOnपers
Jtepresentihgthattheyareownersofsuitschedulepropertyandbyplayingfraud.
ptexecuted‘the,sipertheownpleadingsofdefendantNol,headmitted x
{f‘taki8‘theiii3tit-gchedulepropertyfromplaintiffsbyhimunderlease
ve Ex.A2andeveninhiswrittenstatementhespecifically
bie,Ex/AT
ORIGINAL
co:i".23
2ASNo26of20029ee,
_jsfor45yearsand theybothagreedforenhancementofrent@0%afterevery4 yearswhichclearly establishes thatthedefendant[१०.]isadmittingthecontentsof
Ex.AlandEx.A2.Evenotherwise,whenthedefendantNo.l hadbeenadmittedly payingtherenttotheplaintiffsfrom990till2004i.stillfilingofsuitin
OS.No.42/2004byhimagainsttheplaintiffs herein andanother,wouldestopthe
defendantच०.]indenyingthecontentsofEx.AlandEx.A2. Intheinstantcasefacts andcircumstances,itisirrelevantthatwhetherEx.AlandEx.A2areregisteredornot aswhenthedefendantNo.!himselfadmittedthegenuinetyofleaseandpaying rentstotheplaintiffundertenantandlandlordrelationship.Itisasettledprincipleof lawthatwhenpleaoffraudistakenbytheparties,theburdenliesonhimwho raised suchpleatoprovethesame.Intheinstantcase,thedefendantNo.lsimply pleadedthattheplaintiffsbymisrepresentingandmisleadingasiftheyareownersof thesuitschedulepropertyleasedoutthesametodefendantNo.andreceivedrents, byplayingfraud;butdidnotchoosetoadduceanyevidencetosubstantiatethe same.Asreferredbefore,thedefendant(२०.notevenenteredintothewitnessboxto facecrossexamineand tobringtrue facts beforethecourt.Hesimplyexaminedhis
ManagerasDW]andtheDW]did notdenythe titleoftheplaintiffsoverthesuit schedulepropertybutinhiscrossexaminationhehadcategoricallydeposedthathe himselfwenttoplaintiffsandpaidanamountofRs.77,400/-on08.03.2009andwhen hewenttoplaintifftopayrenttheyrefusedtotake rents stating thatthematteris pendingbeforecourt,whichclearlyestablishesthepleadedcaseoftheplaintiffthat theplaintiffistheowner ofthesuitschedulepropertyandheletoutthesameto defendantNo.lforrunningpetrolpumponrentunderleasedeedsandthe hadbeenpaidrents.Therefore,thereisnothingonrecordeitheroral Ip)
ORIGINAL
30ASNo26of200 andreprobate,ifhegotintopossessionwithhistootherheisopentovacantand surrendereditwouldbeforehetookeptheretosaythathehadnorighttoputhimin possession.Heshouldnotalsotouseprivilegegiventohimtotakerentwhoeverit ie.reasonswhyapersonwhoisletintopossessionisrequiredtogetheritupbefore hedisputesthetitleofthepersonwhoputtohimintopossession.Asamatteroffact,
Sectionl6ofIndianEvidenceActempowerstotheevictionthatthereshouldbea surrenderofpossessionbeforethetitleofhisdisputed.Subjecttothisreservationin favourofthelandlorditcannotbeappreciatethattheSection6ofIndianEvidence
Actdoesnotdealswithestoppelsofeverykindasbetweenlandlordandtenantand thatthereisjustificationforcarryingitsscope.Intheinstantcase,thedefendantNo.
himselfpleadedinhiswrittenstatementthathewasinductedintosuitschedule
propertybyplaintiffsastenantonleaseagreementsandadmittedlyhehadbeen
payingrentsnearlyforabout4yearsoflongperiod.IfthedefendantNo.Iithas correctlyhadbeenalternedtotheplaintiffs,hewilltherebyestablishestheplaintiffs titleunlesssuchattributesbeprovedhavebeenobtainedthroughfraudorthrough somemistakesoffacts.Asreferredbefore,intheinstantcase,thedefendantNo.|
thoughpleadedthattheplaintiffsbyposingthemselvesasownersofthesuit
schedulepropertygiventhesameonleasetohimbymisrepresentationandby
playingfraudtohimbuthedidnotchoosetoadduceanyevidencetosubstantiate hispleadedcase.Ontheotherhand,hehimselfadmittedthathewasinductedinto suitschedulepropertyastenantonleaseforaperiodof5yearsonrentalbasisby theplaintiffsintheyear990andhehadbeenpayingrentstillhefiledsuitin
OS.No.42/2004onthefileofSeniorCivilJudge’sCourt,Adilabad.Hereitis
pertinentta.referredthatthesuitinOS.No.42/2004filedbythedefendantNo.t
//%५४hy
‘TAOS.NO42/2004:
ORIGINAL
5ASNo26of20034Z
३
it)»Thelearnedtrialcourtjudgehadrightlyappreciatedtheevidenceon record,andbyfollowingrationlaiddowninthedecisionmadeinthecaseofSriram
PasrichaVsJagannathreportedinAIR976SupremeCourt2335=[9764SCC], whereinHon’bleSupremeCourthadheldthatinanevictionsuit,thetenantcannot questionthetitleoftheleasedpropertyanditisfurtherheldthatunderthegeneral law,inasuitbetweenlandlordandtenant,thequestionoftitletotheleasedproperty isirrelevant.Asrefereedbefore,intheinstantcase,inductingofdefendantNo.!into suitschedulepropertyasa tenantbytheplaintiffsonrentalbasisforaperiod of5 yearsisadmittedbythedefendantNo.l.Theverycaseoftheplaintiffsisadmitted bythedefendantNo.Iandsubsequentlythe plaintiffsfiled suitwhenthedefendant
No.gotissuedlegalnotice/Ex.A3dated24.08.2004denyingthetitleoftheplaintiffs tothesuitscheduleproperty,itfollowsthatthe plaintiffs haddischargetheburden ofproofontheirpartandtheonusoftheproofshiftsontothedefendantstoprove itspleadedcasethat hewasinducted intosuitschedulepropertybyplaintiffs as if theyareownersofthesuitschedulepropertybyplayingfraudand misrepresentationandmisleadingthesame.Thelearnedtrialcourtjudgehad dealt withtheissueofpossessioninvolvedin thiscaseandbyappreciatingthepleadings, rivalpleadingsandevidenceonrecordhadrightlydecreedthesuitinfavourofthe plaintiffsandagainstthedefendants.
k)Comingtotheaspectofsuitisbarredbythelimitation,thoughthe defendantNo.!pleadedthatthesuitisbarredbylawoflimitationdidnotchooseto adduceevidencetosubstantiatethesame.Itisawellsettledprincipleoflawthatthe issueoflawoflimitationinvolvesbothfactsandlawandthesamehastobeproved are eS
thedefendant०.failedto.makeout‘thevalidand
fae
ORIGINAL
32AS.No26of200 inOS.No.3/2005istobedismissedinhisfavour.ThepointNo.Iisaccordingly answeredagainstthedefendantNo.l/appellantandinfavouroftheplaintiffs.
6.POINTNO.2:
Ihavecarefullygonethroughtheimpugnedjudgmentanddecree.The trialcourtforthereasonsassignedbyithaddecreedthesuitofplaintiffsintheir favourdirectingthedefendantstodeliverthevacantpossessionofthesuitproperty totheplaintiffsandalsodirectingthedefendantsNo.land2topaythearrearsof rent of Rs.33,275/-fromSeptember,2004toJanuary,2005@Rs.6,655/- permonth andalsotopaythearrearsofrentsatthesameratefromthedateofpresentationof thesuittillthedaterofevictionandIseenoinfirmitycallingforinterferencewiththe impugnedjudgmentanddecreedated2.07.20I0passedinOS.No.3/2005bythe learnedJuniorCivilJudge,Adilabad.Forthereasonsnowassignedby thiscourtand thefindingsrecordedbythiscourtunderpointNo.I,thiscourtisoftheviewthatthe judgmentanddecreeofthetrialcourtissustainableunderfactsandlaw.Thepoint
No.2isansweredaccordingly.
Wy,POINTNO.3:
Intheresult,andinviewofthefindingsunderpointsNo.Iand2,the appealsuitisdismissedwithcostsandjudgmentanddecreeoftrialcourtdated 22.07.200.madinNo.3/2005onthefileoflearnedJuniorCivilJudge,Adilabad
OpiaeON"
DictatedtoStenogretranscribedbyhimandaftercorrection,pronouncedbyme
coiurtoniteste.29"dayofJune,2026. pOOe.
JUDGE,FAMILY.COURT-CUM-IVहै
DISTRICTANDSESSIONSJUDGE,
ADILABADहु