JUDGMENT
L. Narasimha Reddy, J.
1. These two Second Appeals arise out of similar questions of fact and law. Hence, they are disposed of together.
2. For the sake of convenience, the appellant in S.A. No. 86 of 2004 is referred to as the 1st appellant and the appellant in S.A. No. 868 of 2004 is referred to as the 2nd appellant. The respondents in both the appeals are same.
3. Respondents filed O.S. No. 123 of 1996 in the Court of the Junior Civil Judge, Kodangal, against the 1st appellant for the relief of eviction from the premises bearing No. 21-53 of Kosgi Village. Similar suit, being O.S. No. 126 of 1996, was filed in the same Court against the 2nd appellant, in respect of house bearing No. 21-59 of Kosgi Village. The respondents pleaded that the property was held by Rani Ramachandramma, one of the wives of late Venkat Srinivas Reddy, and after her death, the appellants succeeded to her interest. They contended that the appellants were inducted as tenants in the respective premises, and despite several demands, the appellants have not chosen to vacate the same. Oral and documentary evidence was adduced by the parties in both the suits. Through separate judgments, dated 22-1-2001, the Trial Court dismissed the suits. Aggrieved by the same, the respondents filed A.S. Nos. 2 and 3 of 2001, respectively, in the Court of the Senior Civil: Judge, Narayanpet. The lower Appellate Court, in turn, through separate judgments, dated 8-1-2003 allowed the appeals. Hence, these two Second Appeals.
4. Sri N. Vasudeva Reddy, learned Counsel for the appellants submits that the Trial Court recorded a categorical finding that the respondents failed to establish their title over the suit schedule property. It is also his case that the relationship of the respondents with the original owner is in dispute. The learned Counsel points out that the observation made by the lower Appellate Court that the appellants are admittedly the tenants of the respondents, is not borne out by any record. He further contends that having realized that their claim as to the title to the suit schedule property is doubtful, the respondents filed O.S. No. 59 of 1999 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Narayanpet, for declaration of title, in respect of an extent of Ac. 2.22 gts, including the suit schedule property in Sy. No. 1810 of Kosgi Village, and that the appellants herein are impleaded in that suit as Defendant Nos. 12 and 13. It is also submitted that once the suit for declaration is pending in respect of a particular property, grant of relief of recovery of possession of the same, cannot be sustained in law.
5. Sri A. Narasimha Reddy, learned Counsel for respondents, on the other hand, submits that the claim in O.S. No. 59 of 1999 is very wide in nature and in respect of vast extent of property. He contends that the Trial Court committed error in not ordering eviction of the appellants though it was convinced that there was no dispute as to the title to the property. It is also his case that the lower appellate Court has taken into account the legal and factual aspects and decreed the suit.
6. The respondents filed two separate suits against the appellants herein seeking the relief of eviction. They did not seek the relief of declaration of title. Such suits presuppose the acknowledgment of title to the suit schedule property by the defendants or an equivalent declaration by a competent Court or authority as to the title in favour of the plaintiff therein. It is only in such cases that the Courts can proceed to consider the relief of recovery of possession. In the present case, the respondents did not plead that they are the original owners of the property in question. They pleaded that they are the successors of the original owner. It is not as if such a succession was granted or declared by any Court of law. Therefore, the existence of title in the respondents, vis-a-vis, the suit schedule property was doubtful. Further, the respondents failed to establish that the appellants are their tenants. They have not even stated as to how the tenancy commenced and how it was atoned.
7. At any rate, once the respondents have chosen to file a comprehensive suit for declaration in respect of a larger extent of property including the one, which is the subject-matter of these suits, the lower appellate Court, at best, could have directed the present suits also to be tried along with O.S. No. 59 of 1999. When the suit for declaration of title in respect of a property is pending, grant of relief of recovery of possession as regards the same property is impermissible in law.
8. Another aspect, which needs to be noted is that the respondents claimed to be in possession of the entire suit schedule property in O.S. No. 59 of 1999, whereas they claimed the relief of recovery of possession in respect of the suit schedule properties in these two suits. There exists a clear contradiction. This needs an appropriate explanation. This Court is of the view that the suits, out of which the present appeals arise, need to be adjudicated afresh, along with O.S. No. 59 of 1999.
9. Accordingly, the second appeals are allowed and the judgment and decree passed in O.S. Nos. 123 and 126 of 1996 on the file of Junior Civil Judge, Kodangal, as well as the judgments in A.S. Nos. 2 and 3 of 2001 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Narayanpet, are set aside. The suits are directed to be heard, tried and disposed of along with O.S. No. 59 of 1999 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Narayanpet. For this purpose, the suits shall stand transferred from the Court of the Junior Civil Judge, Kodangal, to the Court of the Senior Civil Judge, Narayanpet. The evidence, which was already recorded in these suits, shall form part of the record. It shall also be open to the parties to lead fresh evidence, that may be recorded in the joint trial, after they are clubbed with OS No. 59 of 1999. No costs.