THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.R.L.NAGESWARA RAO APPEAL SUIT Nos. 2718 and 3684 of 1992 COMMON JUDGMENT: Both the appeals arise out of the judgment dated 09.04.1992 in O.S.No.75 of 1990 passed by the Subordinate Judge, Ramachandrapuram. The suit was one filed for recovery of possession of the suit schedule property from the 2nd defendant and also for the value of paddy of 320 bags for the default period. The lower Court after considering the material on record found that the 2nd defendant, who is the appellant in A.S.No.2718 of 1992, is a tenant and, therefore, the plaintiff has to approach the Tenancy Tribunal for recovery of the possession of the property and whereas with regard to the claim of Rs.40,000/- for the maktha, the lower Court found that the agreed maktha was deposited by the 2nd defendant in the bank and, therefore, there is no relief granted for the amount of Rs.40,000/-. Aggrieved by the said judgment and decree, the appeal is filed by the plaintiff in A.S.No.3684 of 1992. It is represented by Sri T.V.S. Prabhakar Rao, who is the advocate for the appellants/plaintiffs that subsequent to the decree in the suit, the plaintiffs have filed A.T.C. No.13 of 1992 for eviction against the 2nd defendant, which was allowed and it was also challenged in A.T.A. No.51 of 1996 and also further in C.R.P.No.3141 of 2000, whereunder the order passed by the Tenancy Tahsildar for eviction of the 2nd defendant was confirmed. Therefore, in view of the above circumstances, when once possession is also said to have been recovered by the plaintiffs in pursuance of the order of the Tenancy Court and when the 2nd defendant himself has taken a plea that he is a tenant in the property, the appeal in A.S.No.2718 of 1992 does not survive for consideration any more. So far as the claim of the plaintiffs for the difference amount with regard to the value of the paddy is concerned, evidently, the amount was deposited by the tenant as per the contention raised by him with regard to the maktha fixed between the parties and the said amount was deposited in the bank and withdrawn by the plaintiffs. When once there was a binding agreement of tenancy, there cannot be any enhanced maktha recoverable by the landlord against the tenant. Therefore, in view of the above circumstances, the claim of the plaintiffs for enhanced maktha also does not survive for consideration since the agreed maktha was deposited and withdrawn by the plaintiffs. Therefore, there are no merits in both the appeals. Accordingly, both the Appeal Suits are dismissed. Each party to bear their own costs. ________________________ N.R.L.NAGESWARA RAO, J DATE: 19-08-2011 MR THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.R.L.NAGESWARA RAO APPEAL SUIT Nos. 2718 and 3684 of 1992 DATE: 19-08-2011 MR