2006 (5) TMI 558 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Legitimacy of the second marriage between Vuggina Suryanarayana and Pydamma.
2. Relationship of landlord and tenant between Pydamma and the appellants.
3. Entitlement of Pydamma and her daughters to evict the appellants from the property.
4. Applicability of estoppel under Section 116 of the Evidence Act.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Legitimacy of the Second Marriage:
The court examined the validity of the marriage between Vuggina Suryanarayana and Pydamma. It was established that the marriage took place during the subsistence of Suryanarayana's first marriage with Chilakamma, making it void under Section 5 and Section 11 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. The court noted that despite the void nature of the marriage, the daughters born out of this union were legitimate under Section 16 of the Act and thus entitled to inherit the properties.

2. Relationship of Landlord and Tenant:
The appellants contested the eviction petition on the grounds that there was no landlord-tenant relationship between them and Pydamma. However, the District Munsif-cum-Special Officer found that such a relationship existed and ordered eviction based on default and sub-letting under the A.P. Tenancy Act. The High Court upheld this finding, noting that the appellants had been inducted by Pydamma and had paid rent for some time before ceasing payments.

3. Entitlement to Evict:
The primary issue was whether Pydamma and her daughters could evict the appellants. The District Judge-cum-appellate authority initially ruled that Pydamma had no right to the property due to her marriage being void. However, the High Court, while exercising power under Article 227 of the Constitution, allowed the daughters' impleadment and concluded that they inherited the property along with Chilakamma. The Supreme Court upheld this, stating that the daughters were entitled to inherit and thus could seek eviction.

4. Applicability of Estoppel:
The court applied Section 116 of the Evidence Act, which precludes a tenant from denying the landlord's title while in possession. The High Court and the Supreme Court both held that the appellants could not deny Pydamma's title as they had been inducted by her and had not restored possession by surrender. This principle was supported by precedents such as Bilas Kunwar v. Desraj Ranjit Singh and Atyam Veerraju v. Pechetti Venkanna.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, affirming the High Court's decision that the eviction petition was maintainable. It clarified that the right of inheritance was not conclusively decided in this proceeding and could be addressed in a separate suit for title. The court allowed the appellants six months to vacate the property, contingent on filing an undertaking to deliver peaceful possession.