PALIAPOTU MANIKYAM Vs. SEETHARAMASWAMIVARI TEMPLE MOTURU GUDIVADA TALUK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellants are respondents 2 to 4 in IA No. 1253/77 in OS No.5/67 on the file of Subordinate Judge, Gudivada. The respondent in the appeal is the petitioner in I.A.No.1253/77 in OS No.5/ 67 on the file of Subordinate Judge, Gudivada. The respondent in this appeal i.e., petitioner in IA No.1253/77 is Sri Seetharamaswamyvari Temple, Moturu, Gudivada, represented by its Executive Officer. The respondent-temple filed the petition to determine future profits for Faslies 1376 to 1385 and direct the appellants to pay the same to the respondent with interest. The Executive Officer of the temple who had sworn to the affidavit had stated that the plaint schedule lands are very fertile lands capable of yielding at the rate of 20 bags paddy per acre apart from the second crop and that the net income of 10 bag of paddy will be realized from the plaint schedule lands and the rate of paddy per bags for Faslies 1376 to 1385 is ranging from Rs.34/- to Rs.85/- and hence prayed for passing of final decree. The appellants herein, respondents 2 to 4 in the said proceeding filed a counter stating that there are no proper irrigation and drainage faeilities and the lands do not yield the second crop and they have not even realized 19 1/2 bags of paddy in some years and that they have paid cist also for Faslies 1376 to 1385. The Court below had framed two points for consideration and on the strength of the evidence of PW1 and PW2 and also RW1 to RW5 and Exs. A1 to A4 and B1 to B52, had arrived at a conclusion that the final decree will be passed for Rs.40,943-20 ps. against the appellants with costs and aggrieved by the same, the present appeal is preferred.

(2.) Sri Srinivasa Murthy, representing Sri T. Veerabhadrayya, the Counsel for the appellants, had contended that there is total variation between the report of the Commissioner and the findings recorded by the Court below. The learned Counsel also had submitted that except the evidence of PW2 and also Ex.B1, there is no other convincing material placed before the Court to arrive at such a conclusion. The learned Counsel also had contended that the deductions to be made had not been properly worked out at all by the Court below. The learned Counsel had taken me through the portions of the impugned judgment.

(3.) On the contrary, Sri C.S.K.V. Ramana Murthy, the learned Counsel representing the respondent-temple had vehemently contended that the fixation of the mesne profits by the Court below is based on the material available on record and in fact the Court below had discussed all the aspects in detail. The learned Counsel had drawn my attention to the impugned order especially the discussion at paragraphs 10, 13 and also 14 of the judgment and had contended that on appreciation of the evidence, in fact, the Court below had fixed the yield at the lowest rate possible and hence no further deductions can be given. The learned Counsel also had pointed out even on the aspect of deductions in fact it was discussed at paragraph 14 of the judgment and hence the amount fixed by the Court below is just and reasonable and does not warrant any interference at this appellate stage.