IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH : HYDERABAD TUESDAY, THE TWENTY NINTH (29TH) DAY OF NOVEMBER, TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN Present: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY Civil Revision Petition No.3870 of 2011 Between: Thatikonda Chellaratnam & another … Petitioners And: R V V Satyanarayana & others …. Respondents HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY Civil Revision Petition No.3870 of 2011 ORDER: This revision is directed against the order dated 15.07.2011 in ATA No.3 of 2008 on the ﬁle of the III Additional District Judge, Kakinada, wherein the said appeal ﬁled by the ﬁrst respondent herein was allowed setting aside the order dated 22.10.2007 in ATC No.3 of 1999 on the ﬁle of the Special Oﬃcer cum Junior Civil Judge, Pithapuram, wherein the said application ﬁled by the ﬁrst respondent to declare him as a cultivating tenant of the schedule land and for permanent injunction, was dismissed. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. None appears for the respondents. Perused the record. 3. The ﬁrst respondent herein ﬁled ATC No.3 of 1999 against the petitioners-R.3 and R.4 and others under Section 11 and 16 of the A.P. (Andhra Area) Tenancy Act, 1956 for declaration that he is the cultivating tenant of the schedule land of Ac.3.25 cents out of Ac.6.50 cents in Patta No.231, Sy.No.134 of Agraharam village. According to the ﬁrst respondent, he has been cultivating the schedule land on oral lease from 1991-92, having taken the same from Suravarapu Venkata Rao and after his demise, from his legal heirs, respondents 2 and 3 and one Venkateswara Rao. The respondents 4 to 7 are the legal heirs of Venakteswara Rao. According to the ﬁrst respondent, the agreed makta was 15 bags and subsequently it was enhanced to 24 bags after the death of Venkata Rao and he has been paying the same regularly. The ﬁrst petitioner is the wife of 2 nd petitioner. They ﬁled OS No.15 of 1999 wherein, they claimed that an extent of Ac.1.00 out of the schedule land was gifted in favour of the ﬁrst petitioner by 3rd respondent herein-S.Ramakrishna and she is in possession of the same. The ﬁrst respondent disputed the alleged gift of Ac.1.00 in favour of the ﬁrst petitioner. He therefore sought declaration that he is the cultivating tenant of the entire schedule land, including the said Ac.1.00 and for permanent injunction. 4. The petitioners herein ﬁled counter, contending that the ﬁrst respondent was not the cultivating tenant in respect of Ac.1.00 of land, which was gifted by 3rd respondent herein under registered gift deed dated 24.02.1996 in favour of the ﬁrst petitioner and ever since the ﬁrst petitioner has been in possession of the said Ac.1.00 having accepted the gift. 5. During enquiry, PWs.1 and 2 were examined and Exs.A.1 to A.5 were marked on behalf of the ﬁrst respondent herein and ﬁrst petitioner was examined as RW.1. The learned Special Oﬃcer on a consideration of the evidence available on record held that the ﬁrst respondent herein failed to show that he is the cultivating tenant in respect of the schedule land including Ac.1.00 covered by gift deed and also failed to establish his possession. Accordingly, the petition was dismissed. Aggrieved by the same, the ﬁrst respondent ﬁled an appeal ATA No.3 of 2008. The learned Additional District Judge, by impugned order, allowed the appeal holding that the ﬁrst respondent herein proved the relationship of tenant and landlord between himself and other respondents. Aggrieved by the same, the present revision is ﬁled by the petitioners, who are respondents 5 and 6 in ATC No.3 of 1999. 6. It is not disputed that the ﬁrst petitioner herein ﬁled OS No.15 of 1999 against respondents 1 and 3 for permanent injunction restraining them from interfering with her possession and enjoyment of the disputed land o f Ac.1.00. The said suit was decreed after contest on 22.10.2007. In the said suit, as seen from the copy of the judgment, the petitioners herein based their claim on the registered gift deed dated 22.04.1996 executed by S.Ramakrishna-R.3 herein. S. Ramakrishna-R.3 herein, as ﬁrst defendant, ﬁled written statement disputing the genuineness of the gift deed. He along with other respondents, ﬁled a separate suit OS No.53 of 1999 for cancellation of the said gift deed dated 22.04.1996. The ﬁrst respondent herein was also a party to both the suits, having been impleaded as 2nd defendant in OS No.15 of 1999 and as 3rd defendant in OS No.53 of 1999. In OS No.15 of 1999, he ﬁled written statement claiming to be a cultivating tenant of the entire land, including the disputed land of Ac.1.00 and also referred to his ﬁling of the present ATC No.3 of 1999. In OS No.53 of 1999 also he ﬁled written statement, reiterating his claim as cultivating tenant. By separate judgments dated 22.10.2007, OS No.15 of 1999 ﬁled by the ﬁrst respondent herein for permanent injunction was decreed and OS No.53 of 1999 ﬁled by 3rd respondent herein and others for cancellation of the gift deed, was dismissed. On the same day, ATC No.3 of 1999 filed by first respondent herein was also dismissed. 7. Admittedly, there is no document evidencing the alleged lease in favour of the ﬁrst respondent. In the petition ﬁled by him, the ﬁrst respondent claimed that he has been cultivating the land on oral lease from 1991-92, but in the evidence he has stated diﬀerent version to the eﬀect that his father has taken the schedule property on lease from late Venkatarao. Admittedly, there is no document evidencing the lease in favour of the ﬁrst respondent’s father also. He has also not ﬁled any cultivation accounts or any other revenue accounts to show that the land has been in possession of himself or his father at any time and that they have been cultivating the same. He seeks to rely upon Exs.A.1 to A.5 makta receipts, out of which Exs.A.1 to A.3 were issued by the original landlord S.Venkatarao and Exs.A.4 and A.5 were issued by S.Chittemma W/o Venkatrao. Chittemma who was impleaded as ﬁrst respondent in ATC No.3 of 1999 and her sons who were impleaded as respondents 2 to 4 in the said ATC, admitted the tenancy in favour of ﬁrst respondent herein. As there is no conﬂict of interest between the ﬁrst respondent and other respondents, t he maktha receipts Exs.A.1 to A.5 do not have any signiﬁcance, particularly in the absence of any revenue account, showing possession and cultivation of the land by the ﬁrst respondent. Though, the petitioners herein disputed the genuineness of the maktha receipts Exs.A.1 to A.5, ﬁrst respondent has not examined any one to prove the said receipts, which were said to have been passed by Venkatarao and after his demise, his wife Chittemma and their sons, who were impleaded as respondents 2 to 4 in the ATC, remained ex-parte. The ﬁrst respondent has not ﬁled any document to show that he has been cultivating the extent of Ac.1.00 covered by the gift deed also as a cultivating tenant. 8. That part, the civil court in OS No.15 of 1999 ﬁled by the ﬁrst respondent herein up-held her claim of possession over the said extent of Ac.1.00 and granted temporary injunction restraining the ﬁrst respondent herein from interfering with the petitioner’s possession and enjoyment and the suit OS No.53 of 1999 filed by the other respondents herein for cancellation of the gift deed was also dismissed. The learned Additional District Judge in the impugned order has failed to consider the impact of decreeing suit OS No.15 of 1999 and dismissing OS No.53 of 1999 and observed that substantial rights of the parties will have to be worked out in the civil suits already initiated by them. The civil suits, in fact were already disposed of on the same day when ATC No.3 of 1999 was dismissed. 9. As per section 10(2) of the A.P. (AA) Tenancy Act 1956 as amended by Act 39/74 with eﬀect from 01.07.1980, every lease shall be entered into between the landlord and cultivating tenant on or after commencement of the amendment Act for a minimum period of six years and every such lease shall be in writing and shall specify the holding its extent and the rent payable there for. Admittedly, there is no lease deed in favour of the ﬁrst respondent or his father, though according to him, the lease commenced from the year 1991-92. In the absence of any such lease deed and in the absence of any revenue account showing the possession and cultivation of the land by first respondent and maktha receipts Exs.A.1 to A.5 not having been duly proved and in view of the fact that the claim of the petitioners herein has been up-held by the civil court in OS No.15 of 1999, while dismissing suit OS No.53 of 1999, it must be held that the ﬁrst respondent herein is not entitled for declaration that he is a cultivating tenant in respect of the schedule land. The learned Special Oﬃcer has on proper appreciation of the evidence on record rightly dismissed the application ﬁled by the ﬁrst respondent herein and the reversal of the same by the learned appellate authority under impugned order is not sustainable. The impugned order in ATA No.3 of 2008 is accordingly set aside and consequently, the said appeal stands dismissed and the order of the Special oﬃcer in ATC No.3 of 1999 dismissing the said application stands confirmed. 10. In the result, the civil revision petition is allowed accordingly. G.V.SEETHAPATHY, J Date: 29.11.2011 bss