Maddula Gangamma vs Doddaka Appa Rao
2021 Latest Caselaw 345 AP

          THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B.KRISHNA MOHAN


                 SECOND APPEAL NO.383 OF 2019

JUDGMENT:

The present Second Appeal arises against the Judgment and

Decree in A.S.No.39 of 2015 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge,

Mangalagiri, dated 22.02.2019 confirming the Judgment and decree

in O.S.No.7 of 2014 on the file of the Principal Junior Civil Judge,

Mangalagiri, dated 10.08.2015.

2. The appellant herein is the appellant before the lower appellate

Court and the defendant in the suit. The respondent herein is the

respondent before the lower appellate court and the plaintiff in the

suit. The action was initiated by the plaintiff in O.S.No.7 of 2014 on

the file of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Mangalagiri seeking

eviction of the defendant from the plaint schedule property to hand

over the possession of the same to the plaintiff and recovery of rent of

Rs.6,000/- claiming that the defendant was the absolute owner of the

plaint schedule property under a registered sale deed, dated

02.07.2002, then constructed a tin roof shed in the said property,

later sold the said property to one Talla Malleswararao under a

registered sale deed, dated 06.10.2008 by delivering possession of the

same, again the defendant purchased the same from the said Talla

Malleswararao under a registered sale deed, dated 17.08.2010 and

ever since she was in possession and enjoyment of the same by

running a hotel for her livelihood. It is averred further that in order to

meet her family necessities, the defendant sold the plaint schedule

property to the plaintiff for a valid consideration under a registered

sale deed, dated 14.02.2011 by delivering possession of the said

property to the plaintiff along with the original link documents of the

said property, at her request the plaintiff allowed her/the defendant

to reside in the plaint schedule property as a tenant on a monthly

rent of Rs.500/- under an oral lease, accordingly the defendant paid

rent regularly to the plaintiff up to the month of December, 2012 and

became defaulter from the month of January, 2013. Finally in the

first week of April, 2013, the plaintiff demanded the defendant either

to pay arrears of rent or to vacate the plaint schedule property by the

end of April 2013 failing which the legal consequences would follow.

The defendant in retaliation initiated an action in O.S.62 of 2013 on

the file of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Mangalagiri against the

plaintiff herein seeking permanent injunction in respect of the very

same plaint schedule property of the suit. Then the plaintiff herein

issued a legal notice, dated 24.06.2013 to the defendant demanding

her to vacate the plaint schedule property before the end of July,

2013 by handing over the possession of the same and pay the arrears

of rent.

3. The defendant herein resisted the claim of the plaintiff by filing

the written statement specifically denying the averments of the plaint.

It is averred by the defendant that she believed the words of the

plaintiff and agreed to mortgage the plaint schedule property to the

plaintiff by borrowing an amount of Rs.1,50,000/- with interest @

24% per annum from him, taking advantage of her illiteracy and

innocence, the plaintiff gave an amount of Rs.1,50,000/- to the

defendant and asked her to come to sub-registrar's office, Tadikonda

for the purpose of mortgage of the Plaint schedule property, believing

the words of the plaintiff, the defendant went to Sub-Registrar's office,

Tadikonda on 14.02.2011 and the plaintiff has obtained her thumb

impression on several non-judicial papers and other papers.

Thereafter, when the defendant offered to pay back the debt amount

of Rs.1,50,000/- and cancel the mortgage, the plaintiff started

harassing the defendant by evading the same and insisted to vacate

the plaint schedule property on the ground that he purchased the

same from the defendant. Having realized the grabbing attempt of the

plaintiff over the defendant's property, the defendant got issued a

registered legal notice, dated 29.04.2013 to the plaintiff demanding

not to interfere with her peaceful possession and enjoyment of the

plaint schedule property and return of the original title deed along

with other non-judicial stamp papers, dated 14.02.2011 by receiving

an amount of Rs.1,50,000/-. It is the contention of the defendant

that she has not executed any sale deed to the plaintiff with respect to

the plaint schedule property and she is not in the relationship of the

tenant and landlord with the defendant respectively.

4. In view of these rival averments and contentions, the trial court

framed the following issues.

1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for eviction of defendant and

for recovery of possession?

2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for recovery of rent?

3. To what relief?

5. During the course of trial, the plaintiff himself was examined

as P.W.1 and got marked Ex.A1 registered sale deed executed by

Chinni Veerajnaneyulu and others in favour of Maddula Gangamma,

dated 02.07.2002, Ex.A2 registered sale deed executed by Maddula

Gangamma in favour of Thalla Malleswararao, dated 06.10.2008,

Ex.A3 registered sale deed executed by Thalla Malleswararao in

favour of Maddula Gangamma, dated 17.08.2010, Ex.A4 registered

sale deed executed by Maddula Gangamma in favour of Doddaka

Apparao, dated 14.02.2011, Ex.A5 office copy of legal notice issued by

the plaintiff to the defendant, dated 24.06.2013, Ex.A6 Postal

acknowledgment and Ex.A7 certified copy of the Judgment and decree

in O.S.No.62 of 2013 on the file of Principal Junior Civil Judge,

Mangalagiri. The attestors of Ex.A4 sale deed were also examined as

P.Ws.2 and 3. On the other hand, the defendant and her daughter

were examined as D.Ws. 1 and 2 respectively and no documents were

marked on their behalf. P.W.1 deposed akin to the averments of the

plaint. The evidence of P.Ws. 2 and 3 shows that the defendant was

the absolute owner of the plaint schedule property, sold the same to

the plaintiff on 14.02.2011 and delivered possession of the same by

handing over the link documents relating to the plaint schedule

property in favour of the plaintiff. They further deposed that the sale

transaction took place in the presence of P.Ws.2 and 3 and one

Mr.M.Venkateswarlu, who is no other than the husband of the

defendant. They stood as attestors to the sale transaction, dated

14.02.2011. P.Ws. 2 and 3 further deposed that pursuant to the

request of the defendant, the plaintiff leased out the plaint schedule

property in favour of the defendant as she is running a hotel in the

plaint schedule property and allowed her to continue in possession of

the said property as a tenant on a monthly rent of Rs.500/- They

specifically deposed that the defendant is in possession and

enjoyment of the suit schedule property as a tenant of the plaintiff.

6. After appreciation of the evidence on both sides, the trial court

gave a finding that the defendant, in order to meet her family

expenses and clear off the debts, sold the plaint schedule property in

terms of registered sale deed, dated 14.02.2011 i.e., Ex.A4 in favour of

the plaintiff and received a valid sale consideration. It is also

recorded by the trial court that the defendant herein initiated action

in O.S.No.62 of 2013 on the file of the Principal Junior Civil Judge,

Mangalagiri seeking for permanent injunction against the plaintiff

herein which was dismissed later on merits. The trial court has given

a further finding that it is clear from the testimonies of P.Ws.1 to 3

that the defendant is in possession and enjoyment of the plaint

schedule property as a tenant by running tiffin stall and that she has

committed a default in payment of monthly rents. Therefore the suit

was decreed in favour of the plaintiff directing the defendant to

vacate the plaint schedule property within one month and ordering

payment of arrears of rent for a sum of Rs.6,000/-

7. Aggrieved by the same, the defendant preferred an appeal in

A.S.No.39 of 2015 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Mangalagiri.

8. Upon hearing the case on merits, the lower appellate Court also

gave a finding that no documentary evidence was adduced by the

defendant to show that she executed a mortgage deed in favour of the

plaintiff in respect of the plaint schedule property but not a sale deed

and even otherwise she has not taken any steps for cancellation of the

said sale deed, dated 14.02.2011 i.e., Ex.A4 and there is no

explanation by the defendant for what purpose she has handed over

the link documents to the plaintiff when there was no necessity to

hand over the link documents in the case of execution of mortgage

deed. It has further come to a conclusion that the appellant before it

became a defaulter with respect to the payment of rent from January,

2013 onwards, therefore held that the interference with the findings of

the trial court is unwarranted and consequently dismissed the first

appeal confirming the judgment and decree of the trial court vide its

judgment and decree, dated 22.02.2019.

9. Assailing the same, the defendant/appellant herein came in

Second Appeal before this court by raising certain grounds.

10. On perusal of the judgments of the courts below, as per the

material available on record and the reasons stated above, this Court

does not find any merit in this Second Appeal as both the courts

below rightly held conclusively on facts and law. That apart the

appellant has not raised any substantial question of law to show any

kind of indulgence of this court with respect to the judgments of the

courts below.

In the result, the Second Appeal is dismissed. The appellant

herein is directed to vacate the plaint schedule premises within four

(4) months from today, if not already vacated and comply with the

other directions of the lower appellate court as granted within the

above said period. There shall be no order as to costs of the Second

Appeal.

As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, in the

Second Appeal shall stand closed.

_______________________________ JUSTICE B. KRISHNA MOHAN 25.01.2021 mp