IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH : HYDERABAD TUESDAY, THE TWENTY EIGHTH (28TH) DAY OF SEPTEMBER, TWO THOUSAND TEN Present: Hon’ble Sri Justice G.V.SEETHAPATHY A.S.No.1414 of 1994 Between: Smt.Atyam Sri Ranganayakamma … Appellant And: Chitikena Narasimha Murthy … Respondent THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY A.S.No.1414 of 1994 JUDGMENT: This appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 24.08.1992 in OS No.41 of 1982 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Tanuku, wherein, the said suit filed by the appellant herein for recovery of Rs.15,322.96 towards annual maktha, was dismissed. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant. None appeared for the respondent. Perused the record. 3. The appellant herein filed suit on the ground that she leased out the plaint schedule land in favour of the defendant under oral lease in the year 1979 on an annual maktha of 92 bags of paddy, payable on or before 15th January of every year and that the defendant failed to pay the maktha for the years 1979-80 and 1980-81 in spite of demands. The plaintiff, therefore filed the suit for recovery of Rs.6,440/- towards value of 92 bags of paddy at the rate of Rs.70/- per bag due by 15.01.1980 and interest thereon at 12% per annum in a sum of Rs.1373/- and that for recovery of a sum of Rs.6900/- towards value of 92 bags of maktha due by 15.01.1981 at the rate of Rs.75/- per bag with interest at 12½% per annum, in a sum of Rs.609.96, making up a total of Rs.12,322.96. 4. The defendant filed written statement categorically denying the oral lease or that he fell in arrears of maktha for the years 1979-80 and 1980-81. According to him, his father originally was the lessee in respect of the schedule land Ac.3.51 cents, having taken the same on lease from the plaintiff’s father-in-law Atyam Basava Raju and after the death of his father, the defendant and his brother continued to cultivate the said land and having been agreed to pay maktha of 36 bags of paddy to the plaintiff after deducting the taxes payable to the Government. The defendant also pleaded that the plaintiff and her daughter agreed to sell an extent of Ac.1.74 cents to the defendant’s wife for Rs.33,000/- and received advance of Rs.21,000/- at the time of agreement of sale on 03.01.1980 and towards balance sale price, the defendant’s wife discharged the debt due by the plaintiff to ‘Sri Agesteswara Sakalaradha Sahakara Parapathi Sangham’ of Vadali and also debt due under a pronote to one V.Veera Raju. The defendant contends that the plaintiff and her daughter thus received the entire sale consideration, but however they failed to execute registered sale deed. The defendant therefore filed suit OS No.138 of 1984 (originally filed as OP No.10 of 1983) for specific performance of the agreement of sale. 5. The trial Court framed necessary issues in both the suits. The issues framed in OS No.41 of 1982 are as follows: (1) What are the terms of the lease? (2) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the interest amount? (3) Whether the discharge pleaded by the defendant is true? (4) To what relief? 6. PWs.1 to 12 were examined and Exs.A.1 to A.22 were marked on behalf of the plaintiff. DWs.1 and 2 were examined and Exs.B.1 to B.15 were marked on behalf of the defendant. Ex.X.1 was also marked. The trial Court on a consideration of the evidence available on record dismissed both the suits. Aggrieved by the same, the plaintiff in OS No.41 of 1982 filed the present appeal. 7. The case of the plaintiff is that she leased out the plaint schedule on oral lease to the defendant on a maktha of 92 bags per annum and the defendant failed to pay the maktha for the year 1979-80 which was payable by 15.01.1980 and for the year 1980- 81, which was payable by 15.01.1981. The defendant categorically denied that there was any such lease between the plaintiff and himself or that the maktha agreed to be paid was 92 bags. He also denied that he fell arrears of maktha and contended that the plaintiff and defendant settled the accounts and that the plaintiff obtained promissory note for Rs.3,000/- from the defendant towards balance maktha due for the years 1979-80 and 1980-81 and therefore, there was no further arrears payable by the defendant towards maktha. During the course of trial, the plaintiff filed suit based on the promissory note and the said suit was also decreed and the plaintiff realized the decretal amount. The plaintiff also admitted the same in her evidence. There is nothing on record to show that there was a separate transaction of lease between the plaintiff and the defendant or that the defendant agreed to pay maktha of 92 bags per annum. On the other hand, the evidence on record establishes the contention of the defendant that the land was under lease in defendant’s family since long time and the defendant’s father having taken the same on lease from plaintiff’s father and that after the death of the defendant’s father, the defendant and his brother have been cultivating the said land on lease and that the plaintiff and the defendant settled the accounts and arrived at balance of Rs.3,000/-, which was found to be due towards arrears of maktha. The evidence on record also shows that the defendant executed a promissory note in favour of the plaintiff for the balance amount of Rs.3,000/- and the plaintiff filed the suit and recovered the said amount also. Thus, the plea of the defendant that there were no arrears of maktha payable by him to the plaintiff for the years 1979-80 and 1980-81 was found to have been established and the plaintiff failed to show that there was any such lease transaction as alleged by her between the plaintiff and the defendant. The trial Court on proper appreciation of the evidence available on record, therefore rightly rejected the claim of the plaintiff for the suit amount. On re-appraisal of the entire evidence on record, particularly, in view of the admissions contained in the evidence of the plaintiff, it must be held that the finding recorded by the trial Court, does not call for any interference. There are absolutely no merits in the appeal. 8. In the result, the appeal is dismissed. No order as to costs. ___________________ G.V.SEETHAPATHY, J Date: 28.09.2010 bss