THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE N.R.L. NAGESWARA RAO APPEAL SUIT No.797 OF 1991 JUDGMENT: The plaintiff in O.S.No.18 of 1982 on the file of the Court of Subordinate Judge at Tanuku, is the appellant herein. 2. The suit was filed for recovery of possession of the property. 3. According to the case of the plaintiff, the suit schedule property, which is in survey Nos.18/3 and 18/1, belongs to the plaintiff. Defendants 1 and 2 are inimical to the plaintiff’s father and they have clandestinely entered into the schedule land in Sy.No.18/3 and cut the standing sugar cane crop and took the same and thereafter entered into the remaining portion of the land on 22.02.1978. A police report was also given. The plaintiff is entitled for the sugar cane crop and also its value. The suit being originally one filed for injunction was converted into one for possession. 4. The defendants have contended that they are not the trespassers and that they have been in possession and enjoyment of the property since several years from the time of the father of the plaintiff and therefore, they are entitled for the protection of the tenancy Act. It was also further pleaded that they have been raising sugar cane crops and sending the same to the Andhra Sugars, Tanuku and there was also an agreement to that effect and the bank loans were also obtained for the said purpose. 5. On the basis of the above pleadings, necessary issues have been framed for trial. After considering the evidence on record, the Court below has dismissed the suit of the plaintiff. Aggrieved by the said judgment, the present appeal is filed. 6. The points that arise for consideration are: 1) Whether the defendants are tenants entitled for the protection of the Tenancy Act? 2) Whether the judgment and decree passed by the Court below is legal and sustainable? 7. POINTS: So far as the title of the property with the plaintiff is concerned, there is no dispute. The possession of the property with the defendants is also not in dispute. The only question to be determined is as to whether the defendants are in possession even long prior to the alleged dispossession in 1978 and the defendants are tenants even during the life time of the father of the plaintiff. Though the plaintiff has claimed possession and enjoyment and relied upon Exs.A.4 to A.11, they relate to the year, 1978 and no document is filed with regard to possession and enjoyment for the earlier date. In fact, the consideration as to the proof of possession of the plaintiff will be irrelevant in normal course, but for the fact the defendants are claiming long possession and agreement of tenancy. Therefore, the Court below has taken into consideration the above fact that the plaintiff has not produced any evidence prior to 1978. Consequently, the Court below has drawn an inference that the possession of the defendants is not in the year, 1978 but even prior to that. In order to come to this conclusion the Court below has relied upon the agreement with Andhra Sugars and also the loan obtained from the Andhra Bank for the purpose of the cultivation. These documents go to show that the survey number pertaining to the suit schedule property was specifically mentioned. In fact, Exs.B.1 to B.5, 22, 24 to 26, 29 to 37 and 43 relates to the year 1965 onwards and regular agreement is being entered with the Andhra Sugars for supply of the sugar cane. These documents clearly go to show that there was long possession of the defendants over the schedule property and the plea of tenancy is quite possible. If at all the plaintiff has raised any sugar cane crop there should have been an agreement for supply of the same to any sugar factory, but no such document is filed. Therefore, for all the above reasons, it is quite clear that the possession of the defendants is inferable right from 1965 as tenants and the theory of trespass in the year, 1978 appears to be improbable. 8. The learned counsel for the appellant contends that during the pendency of the suit receiver was sought to be appointed, but however the defendants were paying yearly a sum of Rs.5,000/- but they have committed default since 2003 onwards. In fact, this is a good ground for eviction against the defendants. 9. Therefore, by giving liberty to the plaintiff to initiate the proceedings for eviction before the competent Court, the appeal is dismissed. Pending disposal of the appeal, the plaintiff is said to have transferred the property in favour of third parties, who were allowed to come on record as appellants. It is needless to say that they have got every right to proceed for eviction of the defendants from the suit schedule property. 10. Accordingly, the Appeal Suit is dismissed. No costs. Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending in this appeal shall stand closed. _______________________________ JUSTICE N.R.L. NAGESWARA RAO Date:03.04.2013 INL