THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO SECOND APPEAL No.1348 OF 2011 Dated:15.12.2011 Between: Palivela Venkata Seetharamayya .. Appellant And Sri Venkateswara Swamyvari Devasthanam, P.S.Mallavaram, represented by its Person-in-Management, Corangi (V), Tallarevu Mandal, East Godavari District .. Respondent THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO SECOND APPEAL No.1348 OF 2011 JUDGMENT: Sri Venkateswara Swamyvari Devasthanam, the respondent herein (hereafter called the plaintiff) is the owner of the land admeasuring Acs.42.65 cents in S.Nos.601/1 and 606/3 of P.Mallavaram Village. The appellant herein (hereafter called the defendant) was a lessee. He paid 89 kata bags of Paddy for first crop and 29 kata bags of Paddy for second crop till 1999-2000. When the defendant approached the High Court, it was determined that 15 kata bags of paddy for both the crops would be the maktha. However, during the extended period of lease from 2000-2001 to 2004-2005, the defendant did not pay or give 639 kata bags. After second crop, the defendant voluntarily vacated the land, but did not deliver the possession. Therefore, O.S.No.119 of 2004 was filed for recovery of Rs.3,58,854/- with interest at 12% per annum. The appellant/defendant opposed the suit admitting all the facts, but disputing the quantum of maktha. He alleged that he is liable to pay only 7.5 kata bags of paddy for the first crop, as he did not raise the second crop for 2000-2001. The trial Court conducted trial after framing two issues. On behalf of the Temple, the Manager of the Endowments Department gave evidence as P.W.1 and marked Exs.A1 to A5. The defendant deposed as D.W.1 and marked Exs.B1 to B3. On considering the evidence, the trial Court rejected the case of the defendant and decreed the suit for Rs.3,58,854/- with interest at 12% per annum on Rs.2,65,501/-. The defendant was unsuccessful in his appeal being A.S.No.74 of 2007. It was dismissed by the Court of the IV Additional District Judge, Kakinada, aggrieved by which, the present Second Appeal is filed. The counsel for the appellant would submit that the order of the High Court in W.P.No.12276 of 1999 dated 04.07.2000 which was marked as Ex.A1 does not preclude the defendant from taking the plea that he is liable to pay 7.5 kata bags of paddy. According to him, both the Courts below went wrong on this aspect. This Court has thoroughly perused the judgments of the Courts below. There is no dispute that when the plaintiff – Temple proposed to conduct auction to lease out the land, the defendant filed the said writ petition wherein this Court passed order determining the maktha as 15 kata bags. The same is binding and the defendant is certainly precluded from taking another plea. Hence, this Court is convinced that the finding of facts do not give rise to question of law. The Second Appeal is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________ (V.V.S. RAO, J) 15.12.2011 KH