THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE R. KANTHA RAO C.R.P.NO.2925 OF 2005 AND C.R.P.NO.3736 OF 2005 DATED 18.06.2010 C.R.P.NO.2925 OF 2005 BETWEEN: Kottapalli Jagannadha Raju .. Petitioner And Indukuri Satyanarayana Raju and others .. Respondents C.R.P.NO.3736 OF 2005 BETWEEN: Kottapalli Jagannadha Raju .. Petitioner And Indukuri Satyanarayana Raju and others .. Respondents THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE R. KANTHA RAO C.R.P.NO.2925 OF 2005 AND C.R.P.NO.3736 OF 2005 COMMON ORDER: C.R.P.No.2925 of 2005 is filed against the judgment dated 28.03.2005 in A.T.A.No.76 of 2002 passed by the Appellate Authority under the A.P. Tenancy Act (District Judge), East Godavari, Rajahmundry, whereas C.R.P.No.3736 of 2005 is filed against the judgment dated 28.03.2005 in A.T.A.No.143 of 1999 passed by the Appellate Authority under the A.P. Tenancy Act (District Judge), East Godavari, Rajahmundry. 2. The revision petitioner-appellant is a tenant of the schedule mentioned land of Ac.4.00 in R.S.No. 154, Mogallamuru Village, Allavaram Mandal, East Godavari District under one Indukuri Ramaseethayamma, who is the first respondent in A.T.C.No.19 of 1996 filed the tenancy case seeking a declaratory relief that he is the cultivating tenant of the schedule mentioned land and also for an injunction not to evict him without having recourse through due process of law. Indukuri Satyanarayanaraju, the second respondent therein is the husband of the I.Ramaseethayamma. While the said tenancy case was pending, the respondents 1 to 4 filed A.T.C.No.21 of 1999 seeking the eviction of the appellant and the respondents 5 to 7 with regard to the same land on the ground of default in payment of rent and also for subletting the schedule mentioned land. 3. The following questions stood for consideration before the Courts below. (1) Whether the appellant is entitled for the relief of declaration that he is the cultivating tenant of the schedule mentioned land and for injunction? (2) Whether the respondents 1 to 4 are entitled to evict the appellant and respondents 5 to 7 on the ground of committing default in payment of rent and also subletting the schedule mentioned land. 4. Both the Courts below concurrently answered the issues against the appellant and in favour of the respondents 1 to 4 holding that the appellant is not the cultivating tenant of the schedule mentioned land, he and the respondents 5 to7 are liable to be evicted from the scheduled land on the ground that the appellant is not the tenant at all of the scheduled mentioned land and also on the ground of subleasing the schedule mentioned land contrary to the provisions of the A.P. (A.A.) Act. Challenging the said findings, the revision petitioner preferred these revision petitions. 5. I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner as well as the learned counsel appearing for the respondents 1 to 7. 6. There is no dispute about the fact that Smt Indukuri Ramaseethayamma is the owner of the schedule mentioned land. According to the respondents 1 to 4, the father of the revision petitioner was cultivating the schedule mentioned lands for about a couple of years after 1990 and was not properly accounting for the profits. Thereupon, Ramaseethayamma and her husband, second respondent leased out the land to Rudraraju Ramakrishnam Raju, the husband of the 5th respondent. According to the respondents, the appellant murdered Ramakrishnam Raju and was involved in a criminal case and subsequently in view of entering into compromise with the wife of Ramakrishnam Raju, the said case ended in acquittal as the prosecution witnesses including the wife of Ramakrishnam Raju did not speak against him before the Sessions Court. According to the respondents, the revision petitioner has been continuing in possession of the schedule mentioned land. It is also their contention that the revision petitioner was a sub-tenant under Rudraraju Ramakrishnam Raju. 7. Both the A.T.Cs were disposed of by the Special Officer cum Principal Junior Civil Judge, Amalapuram. A.T.C.No.19 of 1996 was disposed of prior to the disposal of A.T.C.No.21 of 1999. Further in both the cases the claim put forth by the revision petitioner was rejected. According to the revision petitioner, his grand father and his father were tenants of the schedule mentioned land and after the deathof his father Sriramaraju, the revision petitioner is continuing as tenant. It is his further case that a fresh lease was entered into on 28.10.1999 between him and the landlady Ramaseethayamma, but the tenancy is said to be oral. He also filed remission petition in A.T.C.No.52 of 1997 against the landlady and the said petition was decreed exparte. His contention is that the decision though rendered ex-parte in the remission petition would operate as resjudicata and therefore, the respondents 1 to 4 cannot contend that the revision petitioner is not the tenant of the schedule mentioned land. Admittedly, the remission petition filed by the revision petitioner in A.T.C.No.52 of 1997 was decided in his favour ex-parte by granting remission. But the contention of the respondents is that notices were taken by the revision petitioner, who filed the said A.T.C. to the wrong address of the respondents and a decision thereon will not operate as resjudicata. The learned Courts below, in my view rightly arrived at a positive finding that the said decision will not operate as resjudicata for the reason that there was no opportunity for the respondents herein to oppose the plea of tenancy raised by the revision petitioner and as such the question viz. whether the revision petitioner is a cultivating tenant was not directly and substantially sued in the earlier case and the same will not operate as resjudicata. 8. The revision petitioner relied on Ex.A.1-receipt which was allegedly issued by the husband of the first respondent-landlady mentioning therein that she received an amount of Rs.60,000/- from the revision petitioner as advance rent since the amount was required for sending her son-in-law abroad. The evidence of the revision petitioner before the Special Officer discloses that on the date of receiving the amount the husband of the first respondent – landlady did not pass the receipt, but on repeated requests made by him the second respondent sent the receipt under Ex.A.1 through his son. In the course of the cross examination of the second respondent when only the signature on Ex.A.1 was shown to him, he admitted the signature as of his, but when the entire receipt was shown he had emphatically stated that he did not pass the said receipt and it is a forged document. As rightly observed by the Courts below since the attention of the second respondent was not drawn to the entire document (receipt) including the signature therein, there is an admission on the part of the second respondent regarding subscribing his signature on Ex.A.1 receipt. Even if the signature is found to be genuine still the receipt could be a forged document for the reason that the said receipt could be fabricated on a paper containing the signature of the second respondent. The important factor weighed with the learned appellate authority in holding that Ex.A.1-receipt is a forged document is that Rs.1/- revenue stamp came into existence only after 13.05.1995 by means of an amendment to the Stamp Act and earlier the receipt could be on a stamp of Rs.0.20ps which existed till then. Ex.A.1 was said to be executed on 28.10.1993 and absolutely there was no explanation from the revision petitioner as to how the revenue stamp released after 13.05.1995 was fixed on 28.10.1993. Further though the revision petitioner contended that at the time of oral lease which was re-entered in the year 1993, Alluri Satyanarayana Raju and Injarapu Krishnam Raju were present, the said persons were not examined on behalf of the revision petitioner to prove the oral tenancy. The other factors which were taken into consideration by the leaned appellate authority are that in Ex.A.5-Adangal filed by the revision petitioner though his name is mentioned in Col.No.13, he was shown as a trespasser/encroacher. Further, Ex.A.6 to A.9 –land revenue receipts only indicate that he paid the rent on behalf of the landlady, but not as a tenant. The crucial aspect is the mentioning of the revision petitioner in the Adangal as encroacher which falsifies the case of the revision petitioner that he is the cultivating tenant of the schedule mentioned land. If really, the revision petitioner is a cultivating tenant it could not have been specifically mentioned in the adangal Ex.A.5 that he is the trespasser/encroacher. In view of the facts and circumstances mentioned herein above, the learned Courts below rightly arrived at the finding that the respondents 1 to 4 are the owners of the schedule mentioned land and the land was leased out to Rudraraju Ramakrishnam Raju, who was subsequently murdered. During his life time, Rudraraju Ramakrishnamraju filed A.T.C.No.75 of 1997 and obtained interim orders against the revision petitioner as well as the landlady and her husband, who is the second respondent herein. The conclusions ultimately, therefore, reached by the Courts below that the revisions petitioner is no other than sub- lessee under Rudraraju Ramakrishnamraju or is not a lessee at all, the respondents 5 to 7 who have not been admittedly paying any rents are liable for eviction are perfectly justified and they are based on evidence and reasoning. From the facts and circumstances of the case and also from the evidence available on record there is no possibility for this Court even to reach a different conclusion. so long as the findings of the Courts below are not perverse and based on evidence, this Court is not supposed to interfere with the concurrent findings of fact and law in exercise of powers of revision. The revision petitions therefore, are absolutely devoid of any merit. 9. Accordingly, the revision petitions are dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. ___________________ Date: 18.06.2010. R. KANTHA RAO, J Kvrm THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE R. KANTHA RAO C.R.P.NO.2925 OF 2005 AND C.R.P.NO.3736 OF 2005 DATED: 18.06.2010