HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V. SEETHAPATHY C.R.P.No.2792 of 2002 ORDER: This civil revision petition is directed against judgment dated 09-11-2001 in S.C.S.No.33 of 2001, on the file of II-Additional Junior Civil Judge, Ongole, wherein the said suit filed by the petitioner herein for recovery of arrears of maktha in a sum of Rs.1,920/-, including interest, was dismissed. 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner-plaintiff. None appeared for the respondent-defendant, though served with notices. Perused the record. 3. The petitioner filed the suit for recovery of arrears of maktha against the respondent contending that the respondent cultivated the schedule land of Ac.1-83 cents as tenant for the years 1996-97 and 1997-98, but failed to pay the maktha. According to the plaintiff, the respondent has taken the land on lease in an auction for three years i.e. from 1996-97 to 1998-99 for a maktha of Rs.1,000/- per year and that subsequently, the land was acquired by the Government for the purpose of cattle breeding farm and possession of the land was also taken on 30-04- 1999. The plaintiff-temple, therefore, seeks to recover the arrears of maktha only for two years i.e., 1997-98 and 1998-99. The plaintiff further pleads that the maktha for 1996-97 was paid and also a sum of Rs.500/- towards maktha for the year 1997-98, but did not pay the balance maktha of Rs.500/- for 1997-98 and maktha of Rs.1,000/- for 1998-99. Subsequently, the land was acquired by the Government for cattle breeding and possession was delivered from 30-04-1999. The suit is filed for recovery of arrears of maktha in a sum of Rs.1,500/- together with interest. 4. The respondent-defendant filed a written statement contending that as there was a proposal by the Government to take over the land, he did not cultivate the land during the period 1997-98 and 1998-99 and he was also not in possession thereof. 5. During trial, the Executive Officer of the plaintiff- temple was examined as P.W.1 and Exs.A-1 to A-6 were marked on their side. The defendant was examined as D.W.1 and no document was marked on his behalf. 6. The trial Court, on a consideration of the evidence on record, dismissed the suit holding that the plaintiff failed to establish that the defendant cultivated the land during the two years 1997-98 and 1998-99 and also failed to show as to on what date the possession of the land was taken by the Government. 7. Admittedly, the defendant was cultivating tenant of the schedule land of Ac.1-83 cents belonging to the plaintiff-temple and he has taken the land on lease for a period of three years from 1996-97 to 1998-99 on a maktha of Rs.1,000/- per annum. It is also not disputed that maktha for the year 1996-97 was paid in a sum of Rs.1,000/- and towards the maktha for the year 1997-98, the defendant paid Rs.500/-. 8. PW1, the Executive Officer, testified to the fact that the defendant cultivated the land during the period 1997- 98 and 1998-99 also, but failed to pay the maktha. There is absolutely no reason to doubt the testimony of P.W.1, especially when the oral evidence of PW1 is supported by Ex.A-5, the adangal, showing that the defendant cultivated the land during 1997-98 and 1998-99. It is also significant to note that towards maktha for the year 1997- 98, the defendant made a part payment of Rs.500/-. If really the defendant had not cultivated the land during 1997-98 at all, there was no reason as to why the defendant had to pay maktha of Rs.500/- in advance. The learned counsel for the plaintiff produced the possession delivery certificate showing that possession of the land was delivered on 30-04-1999 in pursuance of the acquisition proceedings. PW1, the Executive Officer, has also testified that possession was delivered to the Government on 30-04-1999. Till such period the possession was delivered on 30-04-1999, the defendant must be deemed to be in possession of the schedule land as a tenant. The adangal extract- Ex.A5 shows that the defendant had, in fact, cultivated the land during 1997-98 and 1998-99. 9. Under those circumstances, when the defendant is admittedly a cultivating tenant of the schedule land for the period from 1996-97 to 1998-99 and, he having paid maktha for the first year 1996-97, and having paid half of the maktha for the second year i.e. 1997-98, the defendant cannot seek to avoid the liability for payment of the balance maktha of Rs.500/- for the second year i.e. 1997-98 and the maktha of Rs.1,000/- for the third year 1998-99; especially when the evidence on record clearly established that the defendant, in fact, cultivated the land during the said period and possession of the land was delivered to the Government only on 30-04-1999. 10. Under those circumstances, the dismissal of the suit by the trial court is erroneous. The impugned judgment is, therefore, held liable to be set aside and is, accordingly, set aside. Consequently, the suit stands decreed with costs throughout. 11. In the result, the petition is allowed. ____________________ G.V.SEETHAPATHY, J 17th February, 2011 Ksm/Lrkm