BHOGADI KANNABABU Vs. VUGGINA PYDAMMA
LAWS(SC)-2006-5-37
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Decided on May 12,2006

BHOGADI KANNABABU Appellant
VERSUS
VUGGINA PYDAMMA Respondents


Referred Judgements :-

BILAS KUNWAR V. DESRAJ RANJIT SINGH [REFERRED TO]
ATYAM VEERRAJU VS. PECHETTI VENKANNA [REFERRED TO]
TEJ BHAN MADAN VS. ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE [REFERRED TO]



Cited Judgements :-

THANGAVEL VS. KULATHUMETTU AYYANAR KOIL THROUGH ITS HEREDITARY TRUSTEE, RAMALINGAM S/O THANGAVEL, COMMISSIONER, THANJAVUR MUNICIPALITY [LAWS(MAD)-2009-7-813] [REFERRED]
DEVI SINGH AND ORS. VS. RAFIQ AHMED AND ORS. [LAWS(RAJ)-2014-1-264] [REFERRED TO]
FAQIR MOHD VS. MUNICIPAL COMMITTEE NABHA [LAWS(P&H)-2014-4-348] [REFERRED TO]
ARABINDA NATH DAS VS. MOHITOSH MONDAL [LAWS(CAL)-2010-7-36] [REFERRED TO]
A VIJAYALAKSHMI DEVI VS. MANDAL REVENUE OFFICER [LAWS(APH)-2007-5-1] [REFERRED TO]
VIMLA CHOUDHARY AND OTHERS VS. UNIVERSITY OF JAMMU AND OTHERS [LAWS(J&K)-2013-5-67] [REFERRED]
OM PRAKASH STEEL FURNITURES VS. HINDI PRACHAR SABHA [LAWS(APH)-2010-12-113] [REFERRED TO]
PARDEEP KUMAR VS. ASHWANI KUMAR [LAWS(HPH)-2019-11-216] [REFERRED TO]
GULABI DEVI VS. KAMLESH KUMAR PAL [LAWS(ALL)-2011-12-23] [REFERRED TO]
NARESH AGRAWAL AND ORS VS. MAHADEV GUPTA [LAWS(CHH)-2010-3-64] [REFERRED]
SOCIETY FOR HEALTH AND SOCIAL TRANSFORMATION, REHABILITATION, A SOCIETY REGISTERED UNDER THE SOCIETIES REGISTRATION ACT THROUGH ITS PRESIDENT, DR. MOTHER WANGMO VS. KIMTU DEVI AND ORS. [LAWS(HPH)-2010-10-404] [REFERRED TO]
LEELAVATHI VS. SRI VENKATESWARA FINANCE [LAWS(MAD)-2009-4-189] [REFERRED]
LAKSHMI VS. PRASANNA MANI [LAWS(MAD)-2011-3-355] [REFERRED TO]
SUMITRA BAI VS. PUBLIC AT LARGE [LAWS(RAJ)-2014-2-103] [REFERRED TO]
PRAKASH PAHUJA VS. DEVENDRA KUMAR [LAWS(MPH)-2018-2-99] [REFERRED TO]
SANTA SINGH VS. RAJMAL [LAWS(P&H)-2023-3-73] [REFERRED TO]
SHRI GURMAIL CHAND AND ANOTHER VS. SHRI YOG RAJ [LAWS(HPH)-2013-6-189] [REFERRED]
LAXMI HAZARIKA VS. MANJUR ALI [LAWS(GAU)-2014-1-72] [REFERRED TO]
VELLORE INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY VS. B. V. REDDY ENTERPRISES PRIVATE LIMITED [LAWS(MAD)-2022-6-280] [REFERRED TO]
NIZAMUDDIN VS. XTH ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, SAHARANPUR AND ANOTHER [LAWS(ALL)-2007-3-385] [REFERRED TO]
RAJENDRA PRASAD MANGLA, SON OF LATE NARSING DAS MANGLA VS. GOVIND AGARWAL, SON OF LATE CHETRAM AGARWAL [LAWS(SIK)-2019-6-4] [REFERRED TO]
KUMARI KRISHNA VENI VS. GYNI VENKATI [LAWS(TLNG)-2023-8-22] [REFERRED TO]
BABITA DEVI VS. STATE OF JHARKHAND [LAWS(JHAR)-2022-8-163] [REFERRED TO]
UMA SHARMA VS. RAM PRATAP [LAWS(RAJ)-2013-10-75] [REFERRED TO]
SUNEET KUMAR VS. KRISHNA KUMAR AGARWAL [LAWS(ALL)-2020-5-17] [REFERRED TO]
KESHAR BAI VS. CHHUNULAL [LAWS(SC)-2014-1-14] [REFERRED TO]
ROBUST HOTELS P LTD VS. E I H LIMITED [LAWS(MAD)-2010-10-176] [REFERRED TO]
MESSERS TRINITY ENGINEERING TRADING CO VS. CHURCH OF SOUTH INDIA TRUST ASSOCIATION [LAWS(KAR)-2014-3-481] [REFERRED TO]
BHARATHI VS. VINOD S SIVASUDHA [LAWS(KER)-2007-10-7] [REFERRED TO]
RANE PRAKASH VS. N.R. BUILDCON PRIVATE LIMITED [LAWS(DLH)-2008-1-170] [REFERRED TO]
S P JAMAL AND ORS VS. S M YAHUB AND ORS [LAWS(MAD)-2008-12-491] [REFERRED]
SUDHIR KUMAR VS. KARTAR SINGH & OTHERS [LAWS(P&H)-2015-8-532] [REFERRED]
JOSEPH @ SUNNY AND ORS VS. RENNY THOMAS K AND ORS [LAWS(KER)-2013-10-197] [REFERRED]
SMT. RAMBHA DEVI, WIFE OF LATE SUDAMA SINGH VS. BAIJNATH SINGH, SON OF LATE RAMBRIKSH SINGH [LAWS(JHAR)-2016-7-136] [REFERRED TO]
VIJAY KUMAR VS. HARBHAJAN SINGH [LAWS(P&H)-2013-4-141] [REFERRED TO]
CHRISTY MAYBEL SWEETLIN VS. S. M. YAHUB [LAWS(MAD)-2008-12-397] [REFERRED TO]
COSMAS JOSE PINTO VS. TERESA ESTIBEIRO [LAWS(BOM)-2010-6-92] [REFERRED TO]
OM PRAKASH & ANR VS. MISHRI LAL (DEAD) REPRESENTED BY HIS LR. SAVITRI DEVI [LAWS(SC)-2017-3-17] [REFERRED TO]
RASHID AND ANOTHER VS. GUL MOHAMMAD @ GULLOO PAHALWAN [LAWS(MPH)-2018-3-494] [REFERRED TO]
PARAMJEET KAUR BHAMBAH VS. JASVEER KAUR WADHWA [LAWS(MPH)-2016-3-59] [REFERRED TO]
SHARADA BAI VS. NAVRATAN VYAS [LAWS(APH)-2016-11-70] [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

Tarun Chatterjee, J. - (1.)ONE Shri Vuggina Suryanarayana was the owner of the following lands in vommali village of Madugula Mandalam of Vishakhapatnam district of Andhra Pradesh: JUDGEMENT_29_TLPRE0_2006Html1.htm (hereinafter referred to as "the properties in question").
(2.)HE died on 8th January 1972 leaving behind two widows, namely Chilakamma and Pydamma. Admittedly, the second marriage between Vuggina Suryanarayana and Pydamma had taken place during the subsistence of the first marriage of Vuggina Suryanarayana and Chilakamma. Out of the second marriage, two daughters, namely, Nukaratnam and Mahalakshmi were born. On 28th July 1973 the first wife of Vuggina Suryanarayana, Chilakamma, died issueless. According to Pydamma, on the death of Suryanarayana and Chilakamma the properties in question devolved on her and her two daughters, who are respondent Nos. 2 and 3 herein. Pydamma, had filed an application for eviction of the appellants under the Andhra Pradesh (Andhra Area) Tenancy Act 1956 (in short 'the A.P. Tenancy Act') before the District Munsif-cum-Special Officer, Madugula, A.P. on 18th September, 1990, which came to be registered as ATC 3/90, without making her daughters, being the respondent Nos.2 and 3 herein, as parties to the same. Pydamma in her eviction petition claimed eviction, inter-alia, on the grounds of default and sub-letting. It was also the case of Pydamma in her eviction petition that she had inducted the appellants as lessees in respect of the properties in question and after payment of rent for some time, the appellants had stopped paying, inter-alia, on the ground that they had inherited the properties in question on the death of the first wife of Surynanarayana, i.e. Chilkamma. In defence, the appellants pleaded that as they were the nephews of late Suryanarayana and as Suryanarayana had no issue out of his marriage with Chilkamma and as they were the only heirs and legal representatives of late Suryanarayana, being in actual physical possession and enjoyment of the properties in question owned by Suryanarayana since Chilakamma's death, in their own right, the eviction petition filed by Pydamma was not maintainable. They also pleaded that there was no relationship of landlord and tenant between Pydamma and them. The following issues were framed in the eviction petition: (1) Whether Pydamma is the second wife of Suryanarayana and whether she succeeded the properties of late Suryanarayana and his first wife late Chilakamma? (2) Whether there is any landlord and tenant relationship between Pydamma and the appellants in respect of the property in question? (3) Whether Pydamma is entitled to evict the appellants from the property in question and whether she is entitled to possession of the same?
By a judgment and order dated 17th November 2000, the District Munsif-cum-Special Officer allowed the eviction petition filed by Pydamma holding that there existed landlord and tenant relationship between Pydamma and the appellants and that the appellants were liable to be evicted on the grounds of default and sub-letting under the A.P. Tenancy Act. An appeal was carried by the appellants to the learned District Judge-cum-appellate authority, who allowed the appeal, holding that Pydamma did not acquire any right, title or interest to the properties in question as she could not be said to be a legally wedded wife in view of the admitted fact that her marriage with late Surayanarayana had taken place during the subsistence of the marriage of late Suryanarayana and Chilkamma. Thus, it was held by the appellate authority that Pydamma was not entitled to evict the appellants from the properties in question as landlady of the appellants.

Feeling aggrieved by the judgment and order passed in the appeal, a civil revision petition was moved before the High Court challenging the aforesaid order of the appellate authority. During the pendency of the civil revision case filed under Article 227 of the Constitution, an application for impleadment was filed by the daughters, i.e. respondent Nos. 2 and 3 herein. It is true that an application for impleadment was filed by the daughters of Pydamma only after about 20 years and it is also an admitted fact that they did not approach either the trial court or the appellate court for their impleadment in the eviction petition in respect of the properties in question. By the impugned order, the High Court, while exercising power under Article 227 of the Constitution, inter- alia, held that the appellants were liable to be evicted on the grounds of sub-letting and non-payment of rent. It was also found that the appellants were inducted by Pydamma alone, in the properties in question although at the relevant point of time she did not acquire any right, title or interest in the properties in question on the death of the first wife, Chilkamma. On the date the civil revision case was allowed, the application for impleadment filed by the daughters of Pyadamma i.e. respondent Nos.2 and 3 was also allowed.

(3.)TWO Special Leave Petitions were filed in this Court at the instance of the appellants, one against the main order passed in civil revision case and the other allowing the application for impleadment filed by the daughters, being respondent Nos.2 and 3 herein, under Order 1 Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The Special Leave Petition filed against the order allowing the application under Order 1 Rule 10 of the CPC was, however, rejected in-limine by this Court. The Special Leave Petition filed against the judgment and order passed in civil revision case was heard by us in presence of the learned Counsel for the parties on grant of leave.
Having heard the learned Counsel for the parties, after going through the impugned order and other materials on record, including the order passed by this Court rejecting the Special Leave Petition filed against the order under Order 1 Rule 10 of the CPC and after careful consideration of the facts and circumstances of the present case, we are of the view that no ground has been made out to interfere with the impugned order directing eviction of the appellants. It was urged on behalf of the appellants that the respondents were not entitled to evict the appellants from the properties in question without there being a proof that on the death of Suryanarayana and Chilkamma the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 inherited the properties in question. It was further submitted that, in view of the finding made by the High Court that Pydamma was not entitled to inherit the properties in question on the death of Suryanarayana and Chilkamma, the question of passing a decree/order for eviction on the application filed by her could not arise at all.



Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.