VENUGOPALASWAMIVARU Vs. KAKILETI CHITTAYYA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiff is the appellant. The respondent is the sole defendant. The suit was instituted on behalf of Sri Venugopalaswamy Varu of Kurmapuram represented by the Executive Officer. It was for recovery of Rs. 4,034.30 for arrears of rent due from the defendant in respect of his cultivation of Acs. 8-16 cents of land belonging to the plaintiff: That suit was decreed by the trial Court. The appeal by the defendant was allowed setting aside the decree.

(2.) According to the plaint, the leasehold rights in two plots of land of a total extent of Acs. 8-70 cents belonging to the plaintiff-deity were put to public auction on 27th January, 1969 subject to the conditions of sale as per Exhibit A-1. The defendant was the successful bidder at the auction in respect of both plots in two separate bids for an annual rent of 92 bags of paddy payable to the plaintiff- deity on or before the end of January of every year. The auction was for a period of six years from 1379 to 1384-Fasli. Though as per the terms of the conditions of sale, the defendant was bound to execute a registered Kadapa separately in respect of each of the plots at his own expense as soon as the sale in his favour was confirmed by the Commissioner of Endowments, he did not do so. Under the conditions of sale, the defendant before entering into the demised lands, viz., the two plots, had to deposit in cash the value of one year's rent or offer security of unencumbered property equivalent to two years rent in respect of each of the two plots. The defendant promissing to execute the Kadapas and offering security of unencumbered property had entered into possession of the demised lands in the beginning of 1379-Fasli and cultivated the same. The defendant had failed to execute the registered Kadapas or make the deposit of cash value of one year's rent or offer security of unencumbered property in spite of repeated demands by the Managing Trustee and also the Executive Officer of the plaintiff-deity. The defendant had requested for an exemption from payment of the makta for 1379-Fasli alleging that the crop was damaged due to the cyclone which took place on 7th November, 1969. It was stated in the plaint that the said request could not be considered by the Executive Officer or by anybody, that the remedy open to him was to apply for remission under the provisions of the Andhra Tenancy Act and the defendant had not availed himslef of that remedy. The plaintiff had therefore alleged that he is entitled to recover the entire rent of 92 bags at Rs. 43-50 which was the prevailing price of paddy on 31st January, 1970, the due date for payment of rent. Interest at 5 per cent per annum from the due date till payment was also claimed. In paragraph 8 of the plaint, it was stated that the cause of action for the suit arose inter alia on 27th January, 1969 when the defendant became the highest bidder in respect of two plots, on 26th March, 1969 when the bids of the defendant were duly approved by the Commissioner for Endowments; and in 1379-Fasli when the defendant had cultivated the demised lands and realised the crop and on 31st January, 1970, which was the due date for payment of rent and on which date the defendant had committed default.

(3.) The defendant in his written statement in paragraph 1 put the plaintiff to strict proof of the material averments in the plaint. In paragraph 2, he admitted that he was. the highest bidder of the leasehold rights from 1379 to 1384-Faslis for an extent of Acres 8.~7o cents at 92 bags of paddy rental to be paid by 31st of January, of every year and that the bid was confirmed by the authorities. He also admitted that he did not deposit one year's rent or execute a registered security bond. He pleaded in paragraph 3 that the demised lands and the vast extent of surrounding lands were completely under water by reason of the heavy and devastating cyclone on 7th November, 1969. The Revenue authorities had granted a complete remission for the first crop of 1969. Such paddy as was realised was negligible and was unfit for human consumption and the expenses incurred in respect of the first crop of 1969 were far in excess of the value of the paddy realised. In paragraph 5 it was stated that he had incurred a loss to the tune of Rs. 2,500. It was further stated that on account of an act of God and the circumstances beyond the control of human agency, there was a frustration of the contract with the plaintiff. Therefore, the defendant was not liable to pay the suit amount. In paragraph 6 of the written statement, the price of paddy was said to be ranging from Rs. 28 to Rs. 30 on the due date and not Rs. 43-50 per bag as claimed by the plaintiff.