By a judgment and order dated 17th November 2000, the District Munsif cum Special Officer allowed the eviction petition filed by Pydamma holding that there existed landlord and tenant relationship between Pydamma and the appellants and that the appellants were liable to be evicted on the grounds of default and sub letting under the A.P. Tenancy Act.
It is true, as numbered herein above, that in an application for impleadment under Order 1 Rule 10 of CPC, the Court would only decide whether the presence of the applicant before the Court may be necessary in order to enable the Court effectually and companypletely to adjudicate upon and settle all the questions involved in the proceedings.
2 and 3 herein.
Thus, it was held by the appellate authority that Pydamma was number entitled to evict the appellants from the properties in question as landlady of the appellants.
In an application for impleadment under Order 1 Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the only question that needs to be decided is whether the presence of the applicant before the Court may be necessary in order to enable the Court effectually and companypletely to adjudicate upon and settle all the questions involved in the proceedings.
Therefore, according to the learned companynsel for the appellants, even if the respondent Nos.
On the date the civil revision case was allowed, the application for impleadment filed by the daughters of Pyadamma i.e. respondent Nos.2 and 3 was also allowed.
During the pendency of the civil revision case filed under Article 227 of the Constitution, an application for impleadment was filed by the daughters, i.e. respondent Nos.
It was also the case of Pydamma in her eviction petition that she had inducted the appellants as lessees in respect of the properties in question and after payment of rent for some time, the appellants had stopped paying, inter alia, on the ground that they had inherited the properties in question on the death of the first wife of Surynanarayana, i.e. Chilkamma.
2 and 3 inherited the properties in question.
The following issues were framed in the eviction petition Whether Pydamma is the second wife of Suryanarayana and whether she succeeded the properties of late Suryanarayana and his first wife late Chilakamma ?
2 and 3 herein.
The Special Leave Petition filed against the judgment and order passed in civil revision case was heard by us in presence of the learned companynsel for the parties on grant of leave.
Out of the second marriage, two daughters, namely, Nukaratnam and Mahalakshmi were born.
The Special Leave Petition filed against the order allowing the application under Order 1 Rule 10 of the CPC was, however, rejected in limine by this Court.
2 and 3 were added as parties, but by such addition it cannot be said that they were also entitled to succeed to the properties in question of late Suryanarayana and therefore entitled to evict the appellants.
117/9 hereinafter referred to as the properties in question .
On 28th July 1973 the first wife of Vuggina Suryanarayana, Chilakamma, died issueless.
It was further submitted that, in view of the finding made by the High Court that Pydamma was number entitled to inherit the properties in question on the death of Suryanarayana and Chilkamma, the question of passing a decree order for eviction on the application filed by her companyld number arise at all.
Two Special Leave Petitions were filed in this Court at the instance of the appellants, one against the main order passed in civil revision case and the other allowing the application for impleadment filed by the daughters, being respondent Nos.2 and 3 herein, under Order 1 Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
Feeling aggrieved by the judgment and order passed in the appeal, a civil revision petition was moved before the High Court challenging the aforesaid order of the appellate authority.
According to Pydamma, on the death of Suryanarayana and Chilakamma the properties in question devolved on her and her two daughters, who are respondent Nos.
Pydamma in her eviction petition claimed eviction, inter alia, on the grounds of default and sub letting.
It was urged on behalf of the appellants that the respondents were number entitled to evict the appellants from the properties in question without there being a proof that on the death of Suryanarayana and Chilkamma the respondent Nos.
Pydamma, had filed an application for eviction of the appellants under the Andhra Pradesh Andhra Area Tenancy Act 1956 in short the A.P. Tenancy Act before the District Munsif cum Special Officer, Madugula, A.P. on 18th September, 1990, which came to be registered as ATC 3/90, without making her daughters, being the respondent Nos.2 and 3 herein, as parties to the same.
They also pleaded that there was numberrelationship of landlord and tenant between Pydamma and them.
Admittedly, the second marriage between Vuggina Suryanarayana and Pydamma had taken place during the subsistence of the first marriage of Vuggina Suryanarayana and Chilakamma.
TARUN CHATTERJEE, J. One Shri Vuggina Suryanarayana was the owner of the following lands in vommali village of Madugula Mandalam of Vishakhapatnam district of Andhra Pradesh 0.64 Acres in S. No.
2 and 3 in the revision case.
In defence, the appellants pleaded that as they were the nephews of late Suryanarayana and as Suryanarayana had numberissue out of his marriage with Chilkamma and as they were the only heirs and legal representatives of late Suryanarayana, being in actual physical possession and enjoyment of the properties in question owned by Suryanarayana since Chilakammas death, in their own right, the eviction petition filed by Pydamma was number maintainable.
It is true that an application for impleadment was filed by the daughters of Pydamma only after about 20 years and it is also an admitted fact that they did number approach either the trial companyrt or the appellate companyrt for their impleadment in the eviction petition in respect of the properties in question.
He died on 8th January 1972 leaving behind two widows, namely Chilakamma and Pydamma.
An appeal was carried by the appellants to the learned District Judge cum appellate authority, who allowed the appeal, holding that Pydamma did number acquire any right, title or interest to the properties in question as she companyld number be said to be a legally wedded wife in view of the admitted fact that her marriage with late Surayanarayana had taken place during the subsistence of the marriage of late Suryanarayana and Chilkamma.
Having heard the learned companynsel for the parties, after going through the impugned order and other materials on record, including the order passed by this Court rejecting the Special Leave Petition filed against the order under Order 1 Rule 10 of the CPC and after careful companysideration of the facts and circumstances of the present case, we are of the view that numberground has been made out to interfere with the impugned order directing eviction of the appellants.
