THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY Second Appeal No.1027 of 2011 9th September, 2011 Between :- Kadiri Nagamma .. Appellant And Proddatur Mahaboob Basha .. Respondent THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY Second Appeal No.1027 of 2011 JUDGMENT:- This Second Appeal has been filed by the defendant in O.S.No.799 of 2002 on the file of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Cuddapah. The respondent is the plaintiff. He filed the suit for eviction and recovery of arrears of rent and damages for use and occupation. The appellant-defendant resisted the suit on the ground that she purchased the property from the father of the plaintiff under a registered sale deed dated 14-2-2000 which has been exhibited as Ex.B.1. The learned Principal Junior Civil Judge, on considering the material brought on record and on hearing the Counsel appearing for the parties, came to the conclusion that the defendant purchased the house property from the father of the plaintiff and the possession of the defendant over the suit schedule property is not as a lessee and therefore there is no relationship of landlord and tenant between the plaintiff and the defendant and thereby proceeded to dismiss the suit by Judgment dated 16-11-2004. The appellant preferred the appeal against the Judgment and Decree dated 16-11-2004 passed in O.S.No.799 of 2002 by filing A.S.No.11 of 2005 on the file of the I- Additional District Judge, Kadapa. The learned Additional District Judge while confirming the findings recorded by the trial Court proceeded to make an observation that the plaintiff is at liberty to file a fresh suit in respect of title over the suit schedule property. With the said observation, the learned Additional District Judge dismissed the appeal by Judgment dated 28-2-2008. Aggrieved by the observation made by the learned Additional District Judge while dismissing the appeal, the defendant has filed the Second Appeal. Heard learned Counsel appearing for the appellant and perused the Judgment of the Trial Court as well as the lower Appellate Court. Learned Counsel appearing for the appellant submits that the lower Appellate Court is not justified in making the observation without there being any application by the respondent-plaintiff seeking leave to file a fresh suit. The respondent-plaintiff filed the suit for eviction on the ground the defendant is a lessee. The appellant-plaintiff entered appearance in the suit and claimed that she purchased the property under registered sale deed from the father of the defendant. She marked the registered sale deed as Ex.B.1. The Trial Court basing on Ex.B.1- registered sale deed came to the conclusion that there is no relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties and thereby proceeded to dismiss the suit. The lower Appellate Court also confirmed the findings recorded by the trial Court. However an observation has been made by the lower Appellate Court that the plaintiff is at liberty to file a fresh suit in respect of title over the suit schedule property. The observation made by the lower Appellate Court in the given facts and circumstances cannot be said to be unjustified or contrary to any of the provisions of Law. There is no substantial question of Law warranting admission of this Second Appeal. Accordingly, the Second Appeal is dismissed at the admission stage. ________________________ B.Seshasayana Reddy, J 9th September, 2011 smr