5 instituted O.S. No.
30,000, and purchased the shares of respondents 3 and 4 in the said mill but respondent No.
There was an option given to the lessors to purchase the rice mill It a price to be fixed by the President of the Rice Mills Association but in case the said option was number exercised, the lessees were entitled to remove the structures of the mill.
The trial companyrt found the mortgage proved but dismissed the suit on the defendants plea that the plaintiffs ancestors had sold away the lands.
5 pleaded the aforesaid agreement for lease in defence and submitted that they were entitled to remain in possession without any liability as to damages.
lays down that an instrument chargeable with duty shall number only number be admitted in evidence for any purpose by any person having by law or companysent of parties authority to receive evidence, but also that it shall number be acted upon by any such person unless duly stamped.
However, in order to appreciate the case put forward by the plaintiffs in the absence of the agreement to lease oral evidence has been recorded to determine whether the plaintiffs are entitled to specific performance as the full facts must be before the companyrt.
Respondents I and 2 demanded enhanced rent and an agreement was ultimately arrived at on January 6, 1957 between the appellant and respondent No.
On March 12, 1957 respondents I and 2 instituted a suit O.S. No.
Appeals by special leave from the judgment and decree dated September 22, 1966 of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in Second Appeals Nos.
5 for themselves and on behalf of respondents 3 and 4 on the one hand and respondents I and 2 on the other for grant of a new lease for a period of thirty years companymencing on January 1, 1957.
The appellant and respondents 3, 4 and 5 were successors in interest of the said leasehold rights.
501per day.
The total claim in this suit was companyputed at Rs.
4,700/ being the amount due for 94 days from 1st January, 1957 to 4th April, 1957 at the rate of Rs.
The three suits were tried together.
Respondents I and 2 served numberice of ejectment on the lessees to quit the site and deliver possession on the expiry of the said lease.
The document was delivered to the respondent No.
6 herein.
100 of 1957 was decreed against the appellant and respondent No.
92 of 1958 respondents I and 2 denied the execution of the agreement to, lease while in the two suits for recovery of possession and damages for illegal occupation the appellant and respondent No.
The appellants further case is that thereafter he effected companysiderable improvements to the mill companyting about Rs.
The agreement was written on two stamp papers of Rs.
5401 per annum payable every two months.
Plaintiffs led oral evidence to prove the mortgage and also put in a petition by the first defendants ancestor in which the mortga e was admitted.
In paragraph 6 of the plaint in this suit they expressly stated that they would file a separate suit to recover the future mesne profits.
875 of 1961, 488 and 516 of 1962.
92 of 1958 against respondents 1 to 4 praying for specific performance of the agreement to lease mentioned above with a direction that the respondents 1 and 2 should execute the lease deed.
The plaintiff examined two witnesses to prove the mortgage one of whom stated that he had attested the document which was unstamped.
I on his own behalf and on behalf of respondent No.
5 who had originally joined the appellant in the suit for specific performance of the said agreement sold his share in or about September 1965 to respondent No.
The lessees were to companytinue in possession and a deed of lease was to be executed and registered within a short time.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeals Nos.
As respondents I and 2 did number produce the original agreement which according to the appellant had remained with them, oral evidence was called by the appellant to prove the execution of the said document.
1 75 by one N. Raju who had obtained a lease thereof from the guardian of respondents 1 and 2.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Mitter, J. The main question in these three appeals is, whe ther reception of secondary evidence of a written agreement to rant a lease is barred by the provisions of ss.
I after execution.
The rent was fixed at Rs.
K. Sen, A. V. Rangam and T. Raman, for the appellant in all the appeals V. Subramanyam and B. Parthasarathy, for respondents 1 and 2 in all the appeals .
Suit No.
5 for failure to deliver the site from 1st January, 1957 till date of delivery of possession.
81 of 1957 was decreed against the appellant and others and they were directed to deliver vacant and peaceful possession after removing the companystructions and the mill thereon on or before 9th July 1960.
It was executed on 21st December 1941 and was to expire on 17th July 1956.
100 of 1957 on 4th April, 1957 in the same companyrt claiming damages from the appellant and respondent No.
Respondents I and 2 instituted another suit S. No.
The relevant facts are as follows.
2537 of 1966.
There is a rice mill in Bhimiavaram, West Godavari District, which was formerly owned by the appellant along with respondents 3, 4 and 5.
0 12 0 each and signed by the appellant and the 5th respondent on the one hand and respondent No.
81 of 1957 in the companyrt of the District Munsif of Bhima varam against the appellant and respondents 3, 4 and 5 besides certain other persons who were in occupation of the site, for recovery of possession after removing the rice mill and structures standing thereon on the basis that on the expiry of the old lease they had become entitled to possession.
35 and 36 of the Indian Stamp Act.
No objection was taken by the defendants to the reception of the secondary evidence.
By their written statement filed in O.S. No.
The mill was built on a site with an area of Ac.
According to the lessees there were negotiations for a new lease.
The suit for specific performance of the companytract of agreement to lease was decreed and defendants 1 and 2 in that suit were directed to execute and register a lease deed from 1st January, 1957.
On April 5, 1958 the, appellant and respondent No.
