HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P. SWAROOP REDDY APPEAL SUIT No.1481 OF 1991 JUDGMENT: This Appeal Suit is filed against the judgment and decree in O.S. No.28 of 1988 dated 10-08-1990 passed by the learned Subordinate Judge, Pithapuram. 2. Appellants are defendants and respondent is plaintiff. 3. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as they arrayed in the suit. 4. The facts of the case, in brief, are as under: (a) Plaintiff filed a suit for recovery of maktha of Rs.5,55,244-62 paise with interest at 1% per month and for costs contending that it is owner of Acs.36-69 cents of wet land covered by patta No.1 in Survey Nos.61, 62, 62/9, 63, 106, 107 and 107B in Jalluru Village of Pithapuram Taluk and the defendants have taken the said land on lease for a period of six years from 1970-71 to 1975-76 on an annual maktha of 485 bags of paddy payable before 15th January of each year. They did not execute any lease deed in favour of the plaintiff. As per the agreement, defendants have to pay maktha at the highest market rate of paddy prevailing between 15th January and 31st March of the following year. Defendants fell in arrears of maktha and the plaintiff has taken steps for delivery of the land and the same was delivered to it. Defendants are in arrears of maktha as under: YEAR MAKTHA PAYABLE ARREARS 1974-75 485 Bags 345 Bags 67 Kgs. 1975-76 485 Bags 314 Bags 66 Kgs. 1976-77 485 Bags 447 Bags 43 Kgs. 1979-80 B.383-17 Kgs. 159 Bags 07 Kgs. 1981-82 B.383-17 Kgs. 140 Bags 70 Kgs. 1982-83 B.383-17 Kgs. 329 Bags 19 Kgs. 1983-84 B.383-17 Kgs. 383 Bags 13 Kgs. 1984-85 B.383-17 Kgs. 296 Bags 17 Kgs. 1985-86 B.383-17 Kgs. 337 Bags 74 Kgs. 1986-87 B.383-17 Kgs. 383 Bag 17 Kgs. 1987-88 B.383-17 Kgs. 103 Bags 30 Kgs. (b) Defendants filed written statement denying the case of the plaintiff. 5. Based on the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed by the trial Court for trial: “1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the suit amount ? 2. Whether the suit is barred by time ? 3. Whether the suit is bad for non-joinder of parties ? 4. Whether part payments were made by the defendants as alleged by them ? 5. To what relief ?” 6. To prove its case, plaintiff got examined its employees as PWs.1 and 2 and got marked Exs.A-1 to A-19. On behalf of the defendants, defendant No.1 was got examined as DW.1 and got marked Exs.B-1 to B-9. 7. Based on the material on record, learned trial Judge decreed the suit for an amount of Rs.5,55,244-62 paise with interest at 12% per annum and costs of Rs.18,722/-. Aggrieved of the same, this appeal is filed by the defendants. 8. Now, contention of the learned counsel for the defendants (appellants) is that though six (6) persons have taken the land on lease, the suit is filed only against four (4) of them. Further, though there is no evidence to prove the liability of the defendants, learned trial Judge erroneously decreed the suit and that rate of interest charged at 12% per annum is excessive. 9. Now the point that arises for consideration is whether there are any grounds for allowing this appeal ? 10. Evidence of PW.1, an employee of the plaintiff, shows that defendants have taken the land on lease in 1970-71 and they have to pay 485 bags of paddy as maktha before 15th January of each year. Lease was started in 1970-71 and continued till 1987-88. There was stipulation of interest at 12% per annum in case of delay in payment of maktha. Defendants are in arrears of maktha for 1974-75, 1975-76, 1976-77, 1979-80, 1980-81, 1981-82, 1982-83, 1983-84, 1984-85, 1985-86, 1986-87 and 1987-88. In 1974-75, defendants filed a remission petition in ATC No.40 of 1980 and the same was dismissed and the appeal preferred against that order was also dismissed. They have also filed remission petitions in 1975-76, 1976-77 and 1979-80 and all of them were dismissed. 11. Evidence of PW.2, an employee of the plaintiff, is with regard to Ex.A-17 khararnama executed by the defendants. 12. Evidence of DW.1 is that there are six (6) kowldars. They took Acs.46-30 cents of land on lease for an yearly maktha of 440 bags of paddy. This witness (DW.1), in his evidence, did not seriously dispute against all the facts raised by the plaintiff. 13. Learned counsel for the defendants, though disputed liability of the defendants for the suit amount, has pressed the appeal more on rate of interest, which is granted at 12% per annum by the learned trial Judge. 14. In view of the oral and documentary evidence with regard to liability of the defendants, there is no serious dispute from the defendants’ side also. Hence, the relief can be confined and considered only to the extent of rate of interest. 15. The learned trial Judge has granted interest at 12% per annum. But, in view of the prevailing rate of interest, it can be reduced to 9% per annum and with the said modification, the appeal can be disposed of. 16. Accordingly, reducing the rate of interest to 9% per annum from 12%, on the suit amount, the Appeal Suit is allowed in part. No order as to costs. ____________________ P. SWAROOP REDDY, J September 2, 2010. PV