Back
2024 Supreme(AP) 310
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
T. MALLIKARJUNA RAO, J.
Kadiyala Purachandra Rao - Appellant
Versus
Sri Ramalingeswara Swamy Temple - Respondent
Second Appeal No. 1314 of 2003
Decided On : 18-10-2024
For the Appellant : K. Sita Ram.
For the Respondent: Pulipati Radhika.
IMPORTANT POINT
The court established that a landlord's claim for recovery of dues is maintainable independently of any pending remission applications.
Headnote:
Recovery - Lease Agreement - CPC Section 100 - The court interpreted the provisions of the CPC regarding the scope of appeal and the burden of proof in lease agreements, affirming the lower court's decision to uphold the plaintiff's claim for recovery of dues.
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiff, a temple, sought recovery of 49 bags of paddy from the defendant, who failed to pay the agreed amount despite multiple demands. The defendant claimed crop failure and sought remission, but the trial court dismissed the suit, leading to an appeal by the plaintiff.
Finding of the Court:
The appellate court found that the defendant failed to provide evidence for his claims of crop failure and that the suit for recovery was maintainable. The appellate court's decision was upheld, confirming the plaintiff's right to recover the dues.
Issues: Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recover the outstanding dues despite the defendant's claims of crop failure and pending remission application.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that the burden of proof lies with the defendant to substantiate claims of crop failure and that the plaintiff's claim for recovery was valid and maintainable under the law.
Result: The Second Appeal is dismissed, upholding the appellate court's judgment in favor of the plaintiff.
JUDGMENT :
T. Mallikarjuna Rao, J.
1. This Second Appeal has been filed by the Appellant / Respondent / Defendant against the Decree and Judgment dated 31.07.2003, in A.S.No.6 of 1999 on the file of II Additional District Judge, West Godavari, Eluru (for short, ‘the 1st Appellate Court’) reversing the decree and Judgment dated 03.08.1998, in O.S.No.149 of 1993 on the file of I Additional Junior Civil Judge, Eluru (for short, ‘the trial Court’).
2. The Respondent / Appellant is the Plaintiff, who filed the suit in O.S.No.149 of 1993 for recovery of Rs.8,838.48 ps, the value of 49 bags of paddy, together with interest at 6% per annum from the date of suit till realization towards the value of Martha due from the Defendant. The Appellant / Respondent is the Defendant in the said suit.
3. Referring to the parties as they are initially arrayed in the suit in O.S.No.149 of 1993 is expedient to mitigate any potential confusion and better comprehend the case.
4. The factual matrix, necessary and germane for adjudicating the contentious issues between the parties inter se, may be delineated as follows :
The Plaintiff, a temple, owned a wetland measuring Ac.7.97 cents in R.S.No.59, located in Rajupet village. In a public auction held on 01.08.1990, the Defendant was declared the highest bidder, offering 128 bags of paddy for the sarva crop, payable by the end of January each year, along with 42 bags and 50 kilograms of paddy for the second crop. Anticipating the approval of the lease, Defendant began cultivating the land following his letter, dated 04.08.1990. Subsequently, the lease was officially approved by the Commissioner of Endowments, Hyderabad, for three years covering the periods 1990-91, 1991-92 and 1992-93.
Despite a clear agreement to pay the specified maktha by the end of January, Defendant only paid 79 bags of paddy, leaving an outstanding balance of 49 bags. The Plaintiff accepted the 79 bags of paddy without prejudice to its rights. Despite multiple demands for payment, the Defendant failed to settle the arrears. Consequently, notices were issued to the Defendant on 10.04.1992, 24.04.1992, 09.11.1992, 09.12.1992 and 08.03.1993. However, the Defendant did not comply with any of these notices. Plaintiff claims the right to recover the outstanding arrears of 49 bags of paddy, along with accrued interest at a rate of 12% per annum.
5. In the written statement, Defendant acknowledged his tenancy of the schedule lands but refuted most of Plaintiff's claims, asserting that he consistently paid the maktha. The Defendant further contends that the Executive officer, K.R.N. Sharma, demanded additional payments and threatened eviction when refused. The Executive Officer filed the present suit claiming arrears of 49 bags of paddy and sought eviction, despite the Defendant’s complaints about the officer’s conduct going unaddressed. The Defendant noted that the lease auction occurred late on 01.08.1990, preventing timely planting. Consequently, his crop suffered extensive damage from various diseases. He notified the Executive Officer of the damage on 22.11.1990, requesting an inspection. Following this, the Trust Board Members inspected the land and assured him of a remission. After paying 79 bags of paddy on 31.01.1991, based on assurances of remission, he received no further response regarding the remaining 49 bags. The Executive officer later requested additional payments to expedite the remission process, leading to threats when the Defendant could not comply. On 30.01.1993, Defendant filed A.T.C (S.R.No.617/1993,dt. 30.01.1993) against Plaintiff for the remission of 49 bags of paddy payable for the year 1990-91. Still, the Special Officer, Eluru, on an erroneous appreciation of facts, rejected his application on 27.02.1993. Against that order, he preferred Appeal A.T.A.No.55 of 1993 on 05.06.1993, while the Plaintiff's Executive Officer initiated the present suit with false allegations. Defendant requested the dismissal of the suit, asse
