9911796707
TMI Blog2012 (8) TMI 1221X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Court, Hyderabad against the Appellants No. 1 to 4 for ejectment and resumption of possession of the suit land. The case of the Respondents in the plaint was that the Appellants had taken lease of the suit land from their common ancestor late Shri Dwaraka Pershad who had purchased the suit land from Nawab Raisyar Bahadur. The further case of the Respondents in the plaint was that as the Appellants failed to pay any rent from 1986 and renewed the lease after 1986, the Respondents gave a notice to the Appellants on 30.11.1989 to vacate the suit land. The Appellants filed written statement pleading, inter alia, that the suit land actually belonged to the Appellants and the lease deed had been executed and the rent had been paid to the Responde ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... passed by the High Court in writ petition No. 9717 of 1993 was challenged before this Court by the Government but this Court had dismissed the appeal and therefore, the Appellants were estopped from taking a different stand with regard to the ownership of the land. With the aforesaid findings, the High Court dismissed the Second Appeal of the Appellants. 4. Mr. P.S. Narasimha, learned senior Counsel appearing for the Appellants cited a full Bench judgment of the Madras High Court in Venkata Chetty v. Aiyanna Gounden AIR 1917 Mad 789 and particularly the observations of Abdul Rahim, officiating C.J., to the effect that a tenant who was not let into possession by the person seeking to eject him is not estopped from denying the Plaintiff ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... argument of Mr. P.S. Narasimha that the lease deed was executed and the rent was paid by mistake of fact. 6. The law is settled by this Court in D. Satyanarayana v. P. Jagdish 1987 (4) SCC 424 that the tenant who has been let into possession by the landlord cannot deny the landlord's title however defective it may be, so long as he has not openly surrendered possession by surrender to his landlord. Although, there are some exceptions to this general rule, none of the exceptions have been established by the Appellants in this case. Hence, the Appellants who were the tenants of the Respondents will have to surrender possession to the Respondents before they can challenge the title of the Respondents. 7. In the plaint as framed by t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
