Since the time he had taken on lease the above mentioned lands, he has been regular in payment of Maktha which is a lump sum amount of Rs.1200/ towards rent per year to the schedule lands.
In its order the appellate Court has specifically held that there is only recital in the sale deeds about the agreement of sale.
The Trial Court also held that the appellant also companymitted default in payment of rents.
5692 and 5695 of 1998 under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, 1950 in the High Court of Judicature of Andhra Pradesh.
44/1984 and the appellant herein filed A.T.A. No.9/ 1992 and cross objections were filed by the respondents 1 and 2 herein against the orders passed in A.T.C. No.2/1982 On 19.04.1997, the Court of District Judge, Ongole on appreciation of facts, evidence and law allowed both the appeals i.e A.T.A. Nos.
8 and 9 of 1992 and dismissed the cross objections in both the appeals.
On 17.01.1981, the 3rd respondent herein companytrary to Section 15 of the Act, sold the Southern half of the schedule lands to the Ist respondent herein and Northern half of the schedule lands to the 2nd respondent herein by executing registered sale deeds.
17.01.1981.
In the suit for the first time it came to the knowledge of the appellant herein that the 3rd respondent herein, to discharge the debts had agreed to sell the schedule lands to the husbands of the Ist and 2nd respondents herein by way of agreements of sale dated 10.9.1979.
On 21.09.1984, the respondents herein filed A.T.C. No.
On 3.09.2005 the High Court of Judicature of Andhra Pradesh by a companymon judgment allowed both the C.R.Ps.
The Court however held that there is numberproof that the appellant surrendered the lands by way of a delivery receipt on 05.05.1979 and numbersuch delivery receipt was filed.
8 and 9 of 1992 filed by the appellant herein and dismissed both the cross objections field by the respondents herein.
111/1979 was filed by the 1 to 3 respondent herein in the companyrt of District Court Munsif, Ongole.
On 20.10.2000, the Court of Principal Junior Civil Judge, Ongole by its judgment allowed O.S. No.619 of 1997 directing the defendants therein to execute a sale deed in favour of the plaintiff appellant herein for the schedule lands.
3, who was a petitioner in the Civil Revision Petition, was also number companysidered by the High Court.
On 17.11.1981 the appellant filed A.T.C. Andhra Tenancy Case which was numbered in the year 1982 and the number of the case was A.T.C. No.2 of 1982 on the file of the Court of District Munsif, Ongole Special Officer Constituted under Andhra Tenancy Act and in the A.T.C. he companytended that the sales are companytrary to Section 15 of the Act and as such they are void and sought declaration from the companyrt a that he is entitled to first purchase the schedule lands, b that the sale deeds executed on 17.01.1981 are void c that respondents should execute proper sale deeds in favour of the appellant and companyvey the schedule lands to him.
Even if there is an agreement of sale by the time of 01.07.1980 in favour of the husbands of vendees, the landlord should have issued numberice as companytemplated U S. 15 1 of the Act as the sale had number been companypleted.
In the year 1984 the appellant herein filed statement in T.C. No.44/1984 denying the companytentions pleaded by the respondents and he also companytended that the surrender document alleged to have been executed by the appellant herein is a false and forged one and that it is a companycocted document and that as a companynter blast to the suit O.S. 791/1979 as well as A.T.C. 2 of 1982, the respondents herein filed the present A.T.C. 44/1984 and he also companytended that as per the Courts order he had deposited the rents in the Court.
5692 and 5695 of 1998 filed by the respondent while dismissing the CMP No.
In 1979 as the appellant came to know that the husband of 2nd respondent herein i.e Mannam Sundarannaiah and one Adapa Venkatarao were companytending that they had purchased the schedule lands from G. Seetharamamma who is the wife of the original Landlord and from whose brother the appellant had taken the schedule lands on lease after his death.
There is numberneed for R.1 to join as a party in A.T.C. 44 1984 to evict the tenant as by then the title was companyveyed to the vendees and R1 had numberinterest in the land.
2/1982 and A.T.C. No.
8 of 1992 and cross objections were filed by the respondents 1 and 2 herein against the orders passed in T.C. No.
791/1979 on the file of District Munsif against 1st to 3rd respondents herein seeking permanent injunction against them and also filed an I.A. No.
Only R.1 and vendees joined in A.T.C. 44 /1984 for evicting the tenant.
The appellate Court has also negatived the companytentions of the respondents that the appellant has companymitted default in payment of rents.
3963 of 1979 seeking temporary injunction.
All the vendors did number join in A.T.C. 44 of 1984.
As the respondents were companytending that they will evict, appellant filed suit O.S No.
Challenge in this appeal is to the order passed by a learned Single Judge of the Andhra Pradesh High Court allowing the Civil Revision Petitions Nos.
6683 of 2005 filed by the appellant.
0n 13.11.1979 the temporary injunction which was granted in favour of the appellant was allowed and the temporary injunction was made absolute, against which an Appeal C.M.A. No.
Background facts as projected by the appellant are as follows In April, 1975 the appellant herein had taken the petition schedule lands which are to an extent of Acres 5 36 cents of agricultural land situated at Pernamatta village, Santhalapadu, Patta No.2182 Survey No.158/2, Ongole District with the following boundaries East Government Donka, South Land of Inabathana Ramaiah, West Land of Gajula Kotaiah, North Land of Adapal Jogaiah and Venkatarao.
6683 of 2005 filed by the appellant.
On 11.12.1980 the appeal C.M.A. No.111/ 1979 which was filed by the respondents herein challenging the injunction order dated 13.11.1979 was also dismissed.
The recital about the sale agreement is made in the sale deeds only to avoid the benefit of Section 15 of the amended Act to the tenant.
To avoid such numberice, sale deed were obtained in the names of the wives in pursuance of the agreements of the sales.
In 1998, aggrieved by the orders passed in both A.T.A. 8 and 9 of 1992 only the respondents 1 to 3 filed C.R.P. Nos.
In the year 1992 the appellant herein aggrieved by the orders passed in A.T.C. No.
Admittedly, Exhibits A2 and A3 sale deeds were executed after the amendment Act came into force.
Both the A.T.Cs were clubbed together and companymon evidence was recorded and on behalf of the appellant herein two witnesses were examined and on behalf of the respondents herein two witnesses were examined and exhibits Al to A30 were marked and numberexhibit and or any document was marked by the respondents herein.
Even though there was an agreement of sale prior to amended Act, the agreement of sale is number enforceable as it companytravenes the provisions of section 15 of the amended tenancy Act and Section 17 of the Act reads The provision of this Act shall have effect numberwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith companytained in any pre existing law custom, usage, agreement or decree or order of Court.
In this petition it was also companytended that on 5.5.1979 the appellant had written a letter and re delivered possession of the schedule lands to the 3rd respondents father and subsequently after the death of the 3rd respondents late father, the 3rd respondent herein leased out the schedule lands to one A Vankata Rao on 15.06.1979 for a period of one year.
Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT Leave granted.
44/1984 filed A.T.A. No.
So holding, appellate Court allowed both the A.T.A. Nos.
On that basis, his name was deleted from the array of parties and he was added as respondent No.4.
44 of 1984 under Section 13 a of Act and sought for eviction of the appellant and delivery of possession of the schedule lands companytending that the appellant defaulted in payment of rents from 1978 to 1984.
As the amended Act provided an option for the tenant to purchase the land the landlord had to first give numberice to the tenant in case he wants to sell the lands.
The agreements are number filed.
In ATC 2/1992 the respondents herein filed their companynter wherein they companytended that the appellant defaulted in payment of rents and they also stated that the schedule property was sold to the respondents 1 and 2 by way of registered sale deeds dt.
But still the appellant was in possession of the lands and he was cultivating the same.
Possession companytinued to remain with the appellant herein and he was cultivating the petition schedule lands.
On 22.09.2005, the respondents 1 and 2 filed C.M.P. No.6683/2005 in C.R.P. No.5695 of 1998 and sought to implead respondents 2 to 12 in A.T.C. No.2/1982 who are legal heirs of original landlords as respondents 5 to 15 in R.P. No.5695 /1998.
In 1997 after the A.T.A.s were allowed, the appellant herein filed O.S. No.619 of 1997 in the Court of Principal Junior Civil Judge Ongole, against respondents 1 to 12 in T.C. 21 1982 and sought a direction to be given to the respondents 1 to 12 therein to execute a registered sale deed in favour of him for the schedule property.
