BHOGADI KANNABABU AND ORS. versus VUGGINA PYDAMMA AND ORS.

Citation: [2006] SUPP. 2 S.C.R. 352 · Decided: 12-05-2006 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ARIJIT PASAYAT · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
D 
BHOGADI KANNABABU AND ORS. 
v. 
VUGGINA PYDAMMA AND ORS. 
MAY 12, 2006 
[ARIJJT PASAYAT AND TARUN CHATTERJEE, JJ.) 
Andhra Pradesh (Andhra Area) Tenancy Act, 1956: 
Eviction of tenant on grounds of default and sub-letting-Lessees 
denying title of lessor--Held, in view of s.116 of the Evidence Act, it was 
not open to lessees to deny title of lessor-Jn eviction proceedings it was not 
necessary to finally adjudicate upon question of right, title and interest of 
lessor and her two daughters in respect of the suit land-Evidence Act, 
1872-s.116. 
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908: 
Order 1, Rule 10--Application for impleadment-Relevant factors to 
be taken into consideration by court-Discussed-Andhra Pradesh (Andhra 
Area) Tenancy Act, 1956. 
E 
'S', the owner of the suit lands, had two wives, namely 'C' and, 
F 
G 
respondent No. 1 whom he married during the subsistence of his first 
marriage with C. 'S' died leaving behind his two wives and two daughters 
from respondent No. l. Later 'C' also died issueless. 
Respondent No. 1, filed an application for eviction of the appellants 
from the suit lands on the grounds of default and sub-letting. Her case 
was that after the death of 'C', the two daughters alongwith her inherited 
the suit properties; that she inducted the appellants as lessees, but after 
payment of rent for sometime, they stopped paying. The stand of the 
appellants was that they were nephews of late 'S' and as he had no issue 
from his legally wedded wife 'C', they being the only heirs and legal 
representatives of 'S', inherited the suit properties and as such were in 
actual physical possession thereof in their own right. The trial court 
allowed the eviction petition; but on appeal the appellate authority held 
that respondent No. 1 could not be said to be legally wedded wife and 
as such she could not acquire any right, title or interest in the suit 
H 
properties. 
352 
BHOGADI KANNABABU v. VUGGINA PYDAMMA 
353 
Respondent No. I filed a revision petition before the High Court. 
An application for impleadment of the two daughters, namely, respondent 
Nos. 2 and 3, was also filed. The High Court allowed both the applications. 
Aggrieved, the appellants filed two petitions for special leave- one against 
the order allowing the revision petition and the other allowing the 
impleadment application. The latter was dismissed in limine. 
Dismissing the appeal arising out of the eviction proceedings, the 
Court 
HELD: 1.1. The High Court has held that it was respondent No.I, 
who had inducted the appellants in the properties in question. It was ·also 
A 
B 
the finding of the High Court and the trial court that the appellants 
C 
continued to pay rent for some period and thereafter stopped payment. 
The High Court, therefore, held that it was not open to the appellants 
to deny the title of properties in question of respondent no. I in view of 
Section 116 of the Evidence Act. Section 116 of the Evidence Act is clearly 
applicable in the present case, as held by the High Court. The finding of 
fact, of the High Court and the trial court was based on consideration 
D 
of material evidence on record, which cannot be disturbed by this Court. 
(360-A-B, E-F) 
Atyam Veerraju and Ors. v. Pechetti Venkanna and Ors., AIR (1966) 
SC 629 and Te) Bhan Madan v. Additional District Judge and Ors., (1988) 
3 sec 137, relied on. 
E 
Bilas Kunwar v. Desraj Ranjit Singh, AIR (1915) Privy Council, p.98, 
referred to. 
1.2. In an eviction petition filed on the ground of sub-letting and 
default, the court needs to decide whether relationship of landlord and 
F 
tenant exists and not the question of title to the properties in question, 
which may be incidentally gone into, but cannot be decided finally in the 
eviction proceeding. However, in the instant case no objection on the 
findings of the High Court regarding default and sub-letting has been 
raised. The eviction petition filed by respondent No. 1 was maintainable 
in law and she was also entitled to obtain a decree/order of eviction. 
G 
{360-G-H, 361-A) 
2.l. It is true that in an application for impleadment under Order 
1 Rule 10 CPC, the Court would only decide whetheMhe presence of the 
applicant before the Court may be necessary in order to enable the Court 
effectually and completely to adjudicate upon and settle all the questions 
H 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
354 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2006] SUPP. 2 S.C.R. 
involved in the proceedings. But in the facts and circum

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.