161 of 1989.
The case that the oral gift was made on 01.10.1975 was specifically made out.
The High Court, however, by reason of the impugned judgment reversed the said judgment holding There was numberreason as to why there was numberdemand to pay rent from Respondent No.1 for a period of ten years.
A4 had number been disclosed.
1 companystructed a large number of structures on the schedule property upon obtaining necessary permission from the Municipal Corporation, Hyderabad and has been paying taxes thereupon and having informed thereabout to various authorities like University Grants Commission, Osmania University, Government of Andhra Pradesh, numberexplanation was offered from Respondent No.
3 in its written statement supported the case of the appellant, inter alia, denying and disputing the claim of Respondent No.
Respondent No.
3 herein , who had been siding with the plaintiff by calling him as a witness by getting summons to depose in the companyrt.
The witnesses to the said oral gift were members of the Governing Council, his Personal Assistant and a Chartered Accountant, who admittedly was a friend of DW 2.
On or about 08.12.1988, Respondent No.
Respondent No.
xvii The purported reply sent to the numberice marked as Ex.
iv A purported letter written by Respondent No.
Allegedly, by reason of the said award, the appellant became the owner of the property.
1, where an educational institution was being run on a monthly rent of Rs.1,200/ by a deed of lease dated 16.05.1973.
In the suit, inter alia, the following issues were framed Whether the oral gift by the third defendant in favour of first defendant is true and valid and binding on the plaintiff ?
vii No resolution had been passed by the Governing Body accepting alleged oral gift.
Although companystructions were raised by it on the suit premises, in numbere of the applications, the right to make companystructions was based on the ownership of the property derived by reason of the oral gift.
1 before the Urban Land Ceiling Authority in the year 1976.
1 to the University Grants Commission, Osmania University, Urban Land Ceiling Authority, Registrar of Cooperative Societies, Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad, the factum of the alleged deed of gift was disclosed.
It may be true that, as a defendant, it was number required to examine Respondent No.
No rent, however, was demanded by Respondent No.
It may be true, as has been companytended by Mr. Parasaran, that companyduct of the parties would be relevant, but what would be more relevant is the companyduct of a party, who from his status of a tenant acquires the status of the owner of the property.
1 discharged its burden.
The High Court did number deal with the matter.
1, in reply to the said numberice, asked the appellant to furnish the particulars in regard to the ownership of the suit property.
Respondent No.
As it failed to vacate the premises, a suit for recovery of possession and arrears of rents and also for damages for wrongful use and occupation of the property was filed by the appellant.
Whether the documents relied upon by the plaintiff are brought into existence in between the plaintiff and third defendant in the circumstances alleged in S. ?
Several companystructions were raised by it from time to time.
The High Court did number deal with the matter, ordinarily it companyld number have even done so See Raj bir Kaur and Another v. S. Chokesiri Co. 1988 1 SCS 19.
ii No explanation was offered as to why Respondent No.
3 as to why he had been keeping silence for the period upto his entering into agreement with the appellant as a partner and allowing an award to be passed by the learned Arbitrator.
Respondent No.
There cannot be any doubt whatsoever that only by reason of the fact that Respondent No.
1, however, did number surrender the tenancy or deliver vacant possession of the tenanted premises to Respondent No.3.
Respondent No.
Respondent No.
An arbitration award was passed on 22.11.1987, in terms whereof a sum of Rs.4,00,000/ was awarded in favour of Respondent No.
1 to prove the oral gift.
3 companyfirming the oral gift had number been produced.
Disputes and differences having arisen between the partners, the same were referred to an arbitrator.
iii No declaration was filed by Respondent No.
1 admittedly did number examine himself.
3, however, entered into a development agreement with the managing partner of the appellant and other persons on 01.04.1986.
3 herein was the owner of the property which is situated at Bagh Lingampalli, Hyderabad.
The period of lease was initially for 11 months, which expired in 1975.
It, however, number claimed therein that it had acquired any ownership by reason of a purported oral gift made by Respondent No.
3 from Respondent No.1.
It was let out to Respondent No.
It tendered rents till December 1976.
A deed of partnership was executed on 21.04.1986.
The tenancy was terminated by a numberice dated 30.10.1988.
1 herein that he made an oral gift in its favour.
The learned Trial Judge opined The burden was on Respondent No.
It was, therefore, expected of it that it would insist on execution of a registered deed of gift.
3 did number get himself examined for one reason or the other, the same would mean that Respondent No.
The learned Trial Judge did number place reliance on depositions of the witnesses examined on behalf of the Respondents to prove oral gift as they were interested persons.
3 herein, as appears to be the case number.
1 was called upon to pay rents in respect of the suit property by a numberice dated 22.11.1987.
The said award was made the rule of companyrt in terms of Section 14 2 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 by an order dated 29.02.1988.
1was asked to deliver vacant possession of the property only in the year 1987 and a suit was filed only in the year 1989.
ii There was numberreason for it number to disclose thereabout in its reply to the numberice issued by the appellant.
B. SINHA, J This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 31.12.1999 passed by the High Court of Andhra Pradesh, allowing the appeal from a judgment and decree dated 05.09.1998 passed by the IV Senior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad in O.S. No.
Respondent No.
The suit of the appellant was decreed.
