THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRDESH:: HYDERABAD TUESDAY, THE FIFTEENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN PRESENT:: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY C.R.P.No.756 OF 2009 Between: Bolla Veera Venkata Rama Mohanarao and another …Petitioners A n d Gutam Krishnamurthy and two others ..Respondents HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY C.R.P.No.756 OF 2009 ORDER: This civil revision petition is directed against the order dated 29-09-2008 in A.T.A.No.21 of 2004, on the file of the II-Additional District Judge, East Godavari, at Amalapuram, wherein the said appeal filed by the petitioners herein was dismissed and the order dated 14- 10-2004 in A.T.C.No.127 of 1996, on the file of the Special Officer under the Tenancy Act-cum-Junior Civil Judge, Kothapeta, declaring the first respondent herein as cultivating tenant, was confirmed. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners. None appears for the respondents though served with notices. Perused the record. 3. The first respondent herein filed A.T.C.No.127 of 1996 under Sections 10 and 16 of the Andhra Tenancy Act for a declaration that he is a statutory tenant of the plaint schedule property and for permanent injunction. According to the first respondent, the schedule property absolutely belongs to the second respondent herein and she leased out the same to the first respondent in August, 1982 under oral lease stipulating cash maktha of Rs.1,800/- payable before Ugadi every year and the same was enhanced to Rs.2,000/- in 1992-93 and further enhanced to Rs.2,300/- in 1994-95. The first respondent alleges that the third respondent and her sons, the petitioners, who are closely related to the second respondent intended to purchase the schedule property and, therefore, demanded the first respondent to vacate the schedule land and when he refused to do so, they even attempted to trespass. Hence, he filed ATC for a declaration that he is a statutory tenant and for permanent injunction. The second respondent herein filed a counter admitting that the schedule land was leased out to the first respondent herein in August, 1982 on a rent of Rs.1,800/- and also admitting the enhancement of rent to Rs.2,000/- and later to Rs.2,300/-. According to the second respondent, the first respondent-tenant agreed to pay Rs.3,000/- from 1996-97 but failed to pay the same. The third respondent herein and her sons, the petitioners, filed a counter denying that the first respondent is the tenant and contending that the second respondent executed an agreement of sale in favour of the third respondent and they paid Rs.2,40,000/- towards sale consideration and the second respondent handed over the title deeds to the third respondent and petitioners herein. They further pleaded that the suit O.S.No.92 of 1991 filed by them against the second respondent before the Senior Civil Judge, Razole for specific performance was decreed on 10-02-1993 and the said judgment and decree became final and that in execution thereof, a sale deed was executed by the Court on 22-08-1996 and the third respondent and petitioners deposited the balance sale consideration amount of Rs.60,000/- into Court. The third respondent and the petitioners alleged that the first respondent was set up by the second respondent to cause obstruction to the delivery of property in the execution proceedings and the second respondent got the ATC filed by the first respondent. 4. During enquiry, P.Ws.1 to 4 were examined on behalf of the tenant and Exs.A-1 to A-27 were marked on his side. D.Ws.1 to 5 were examined on behalf of the petitioners herein and Exs.B-1 to B-5 were marked. 5. On a consideration of the evidence available on record, the learned Special Officer held that the first respondent herein was in possession of the schedule property as a cultivating tenant. Accordingly, the petition was allowed. Aggrieved by the same, the third respondent herein and her sons, the petitioners, filed A.T.A.No.21 of 2004 and the said appeal was dismissed by the impugned order. Hence, the present civil revision petition. 6. Admittedly, the second respondent herein was the owner of the schedule land. She also admitted that the land was leased out to the first respondent under an oral lease in August, 1982 on a cash rent of Rs.1,800/- payable before every Ugadi and the same was subsequently enhanced to Rs.2,000/- and later to Rs.2,300/-. The petitioners contend that they purchased the schedule land and other lands from the second respondent for Rs.3 lakhs under an agreement of sale and paid Rs.2,40,000/- as advance and they filed O.S.No.92 of 1991 for specific performance of the said agreement and the said suit was decreed and in execution thereof, they obtained a sale deed from the Court after depositing the sale price of Rs.60,000/-. The first respondent also contended that the petitioners herein claiming to be the purchasers of the schedule land demanded him to vacate and on his refusal to do so, they threatened to trespass and, therefore, he had to file ATC. The petitioners allege that the first respondent was set up by the second respondent to defeat the execution proceedings. 7. The first respondent, apart from testifying himself, had also examined the neighbouring landholders P.Ws.2 to 4 who all deposed to the effect that the first respondent herein was in possession of the land as a cultivating tenant. Exs.A-1 to A-10 the true copies of the adangal for the Faslies 1396 to 1405 (1987 to 1996), Ex.A-11 is possession certificate issued by the MRO, Ex.A-16 is the possession certificate issued by the VAO, Exs.A-19, 21 to 24, the land revenue receipts and Exs.A-25 to A-27 the rent receipts established that the first respondent has been in possession of the schedule land as a cultivating tenant and he has been paying the rents to the landlord and land revenue and that his possession as a cultivating tenant is entered in the revenue records also for the past so many years. Admittedly, the second respondent, the original owner, did not contest the suit O.S.No.92 of 1991 filed by the petitioners for specific performance. This circumstance supports the contention of the first respondent that the second respondent and the petitioners have colluded to somehow evict the first respondent from the schedule land. At any rate, it negates the contention of the petitioners that the first respondent was set up by the second respondent. When the second respondent mutely suffered the decree, it is improbable that she would be causing any obstruction to the execution proceedings by setting up the first respondent. Be that as it may, as rightly observed by the learned Special Officer, the overwhelming oral and documentary evidence adduced by the first respondent clearly established that he is the cultivating tenant in respect of the schedule land and the appellate Court on reappraisal of the evidence on record confirmed the said finding. The impugned orders of the Courts below, concurrently holding the first respondent is the cultivating tenant in respect of the schedule land and, therefore, entitled for declaration and injunction prayed for, do not suffer from any illegality or irregularity so as to call for any interference by this Court in exercise of revisional jurisdiction. 8. In the result, the civil revision petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. ________________________ G.V.SEETHAPATHY, J 15th March, 2011 Lrkm.