BAPAIAH Vs. GRAM PANCHAYAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This second appeal by the plaintiff arises out of a suit for recovery of mesne profits against the Gram Panchayat of Bhatlapenumarthi. The plaintiff was inducted as a tenant of the suit land prior to 1956. In the year 1956 fair rent was fixed under the Andhra Tenancy Act 1956 at 121/2 bags of paddy per year payable by 30th June every year. In the year 1967 the then Executive Officer of the defendent-Panchayat Auctioned the lease-. hold rights of the suit lands alleging that the suit land had been subleased by the plaintiff to Chaduvula Samuel and that he had surrendered the possession of the said land to the defendent. In that auction one Chalasani Bhaskara Rao was the highest bidder. But he did not take possession and cultivate the lands due to some obstruction. Thereafter, the sub-lease in favour of Chalasani Bhaskara Rao was cancelled. Chalasani Venkaiah was setup as a lessee by the then President of the Gram Panchayat and lease was granted in favour of Chalasani Venkaiah When he threatened to interfere with the plaintiff's possession, the plaintiff filed a suit O. S. No. 67 of 1967 on the file of the Subordinate Judge's Court, Machilipatnam for injunction and in the alternative for possession and profits.

(2.) On the application filed by the plaintiff for the appointment of a Receiver and for interim injunction, the defendant was directed to deposit Rs. 2,000/- being the value of 50 bags of paddy for which the lease hold was granted in favour of Chalasani Venkaiah for'the year 1967-68. Thereafter, the defendant auctioned the leasehold rights of the suit lands and realised Rs. 1500/-, Rs, 1400/-, 1350/- ard Ps. 1325/- for the years 1968-69, 1969-70, 1970-71 and 1971-72 respectively. O. S. 67 of 1967 was dismissed on 18-7-1970. The plaintiff preferred A.S.No. 71 of 1970 in the District Court, Krishna, at Machlipatnam. The appeal was allowed on 23-12-1971 and decree for possession was granted. But the decree was silent about the profits subsequent to the suit year 1967-68. The plaintiff pleads that the defendant took possession of the suit lands falsely setting up one Samuel as a sub-lessee that the defendant who was in wrongful possession of the property was liable to pay the profits on the suit land to the plaintiff. He claimed that he was liable to pay fair rent only at the rate of ,121/2 bags of paddy per year, that the defendant realised the amounts above mentioned by the auction of the leasehold rights of the suit land, and that the defendant was liable to pay the balance after deducting the fair rent. He clamed also interest at 6% per annum from the date of the defendant Panchayat realised the amounts by auction. The plaintiff also pleaded that the suit O S.No. 67 of 1967 was filed bona fide and that the period taken between the suit and the appeal had to be deducted in computirg the period of limitation. Therefore, he claimed that the suit was in time. The plaintiff valued the paddy at the rate of Rs. 40/- per bag during the first 3 years and at the rate of Rs. 38/- per bag during the last 2 years.- He claimed in all Rs. 5,650-98 Ps. towards profits for 5 years from 1967 to 1972,

(3.) The defendant-Gram Panchayat resisted the suit contending inter alia that their possession was lawful, that Ch. Samuel surrendered the possession of the suit land to the defendant and executed a relinquishment deed on 14-7-1967 and that in the re-auction Chalasani Venkayya was declared to be the highest bidder of the leasehold rights of the sutt lands. It was also pleaded that the suit was barred by limitation and that the claim of the plaintiff that he had been prosecuting the suit O,S.No.67 of 1967 tona fide for possession at d profits and so was entitled 1o deduct the time taken for the period when the suit and the appeal were pending was misconceived and untenable. Since the plaintiff claimed profits in O.S.No.67 of 1967, it was averred that the judgment and decree in O.S.No 67 of 1967 operated as res judicata. It was also pleaded that the plaintiff was notentiitled to'claim any interest in the absence of any agreement. The trial Court on a consideration of the evidence adduced by the parties held that the decision in O.S.No 67 of 1967 did not operate as res judicata and that the suit was not barred by limitation. The suit was tccordingly decreed with costs.