High Court dismissed civil revision challenging orders under AP Tenancy Act. Bench held that burden of proving an oral lease lies on the tenant, which failed due to lack of receipts or corroborative evidence.
Civil revision petition dismissed; order as to costs not given; miscellaneous petitions closed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI
TUESDAY, THE TENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR
PRESENT
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY
CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 3654 OF 2013
Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, praying that in the circumstances stated in the grounds filed herein, aggrieved by the order dt. 21/08/2012 in ATA.No. 21/2011 on the file of the Tenancy Appellate Tribunal (PrI Dist. Judge), Rajahmundry,EastGodavariDistrict.
Between:
Koppisetty Govindarajulu, S/o Narasimha Murthy, aged 45 years, R/o Unduru Village, Ramachandrapuram Mandal, E.G.Dist ...PETITIONER
AND
Chilukuri Subba Lakshmi, W/o late Veera Raghavayya, aged 67 years R/o Unduru Village, Ramachandrapuram Mandal, E.G.Dist
...RESPONDENT
Counsel for the PetitioneriSRI T. V. S. PRABHAKARA RAO Counsel for the Respondent: Non-Appeared
The Court made the following: ORDER
APHC010029432013
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
[3460]
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
TUESDAY ,THE TENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY
CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 3654/2013
Between:
Koppisetty Govindarajulu
...PETITIONER
AND
Chilukuri Subba Lakshmi
...RESPONDENT
Counsel for the Petitioner:
1 .T V S PRABHAKARA RAO
Counsel for the Respondent:
The Court made the following:
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY
C.R.P.No.3654 of 2013
ORDER:
The present revision is filed against the order dated 21.08.2012 in A.T.A.No.21 of 2011 passed by the Tenancy Appellate Tibunal (Principal District Judge), Rajahmundry,East Godavari District confirming the order dated 05.11.2011 in ATC 06 of 2005 passed by the Special officer under TenancyAct- cum-Prl.Jr.Civil Judge,Ramachandrapuram. 2. Petitioner is the original petitioner. The ATC 06 of2005 was filed under section 16 of the AP (AA) Tenancy Act,1956to declare him as statutory tenant over an extent of Ac.1-3,1cts. It is the plea of the appellant that the respondent istheownerof the petition schedule land and she leased out the petition schedule land under an oral lease to the Petitioner in May, 2000 on maktha of 10 bags of paddy for one acre forthefirst crop payable at Makara Sankranti of every year and 10 bagsof paddy for second crop payable within 15 days of harvestofthe crop. The Petitioner has been paying maktha, but had not
2
\ '\
received receipts from the respondent out of confidence upon the respondent. 3. It was pleaded that in the year, 2004-2005, the Petitioner raised a second crop of Bondalu variety of paddy by investing Rs.7,000/- per acre and as disputes arose on account of interference by the son-in-law of the respondent, the Petitioner filed the present application. The claim of petitioner was opposed by the respondent by filing a counter and contending that there was no landlord and tenant relationship.
3
appellant to show that he is the cultivating tenant, The appellant has not filed any receipts nor submitted any corroborative evidence in support of the tenancy. 7. As the claim of tenancy of the petitioner was disbelieved by both the Courts, nothing is pointed out showing any manifest misreading of evidence. The findings arrived at by the Courts below cannot be interfered by this Court under the revisional jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India merely because contrary view is possible.
- Therefore, this Court does not find any error in the orders of the Courts below. The civil revision petition is therefore dismissed. No order as to costs. As a sequel, the miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.
//TRUE COPY//
SD/- K. KASI RAO ACHARI ASSISTANT REGISTRAR A& SECTION OFFICER
To.
nm
HIGH COURT DATED: 10/09/2024
ORDER
CRP.No.3654 of 2013
of
ov
m f
1 1 dec 202’i
Ho to/
Currant Section
CIVIL REVISION PETITION IS DISMISSING
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the revisional court can interfere on a pure question of fact wherein the claim of tenancy due to lack of evidence was disbelieved by courts below.
Whether the burden of proof regarding an oral lease lies on the petitioner to show he is a cultivating tenant.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Koppisetty Govindarajulu
Chilukuri Subba Lakshmi
Nyapathy Vijay
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
