STATE OF A P Vs. TANGUDU VARAPRASADA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The State of Andhra Pradesh represented by the Collector, Srikakulam District and other defendants in the Court below preferred this appeal against the judgment and decree dated 17.12.1989, O.S. No.42 of 1989 on the file of Subordinate Judge, Sompeta, wherein the learned Judge decreed the suit of the plaintiff for Rs.3,86,000/- with an interest at the rate of 6% p.a. from the date of the judgment till the date of realization.

(2.) The defendants-department has got Cashew gardens to the extent of 253.96 hectors known as 'Mendu Forest and Mendu Forest Extension under Kasibuga Forest Range of Srikakulam District. The defendants-department used to lease out the above cashew gardens in the flowery season public auction every year in the month of January and February for collection and sale of cashew nuts. Usually, the said garden will be in possession of the lessee from March to June of the financial year.

(3.) It is the case of the plaintiff that he participated in the auction conducted by the defendants-department on 20.4.1989 and became the highest bidder for the year 1987-88. His highest bid value was Rs.4,21,000/-. According to the terms and conditions of the bid agreement, he has deposited the entire bid amount of Rs.4,21,000/- on 22.2.1989 apart from Rs.26,130/- by way of security deposit, Rs.71,430/- towards income 2004(4) FR-F-34 tax and Rs.32,470/- towards sale tax as per rules. Thereafter, on 4.3.1989, the parties entered into an agreement-Ex-A5 and the plaintiff was given possession of the auctioned garden and as per the terms of the contract, the garden will be in his possession till 30-6-1989. On the night of 29.3.1989, there was an unexpected and unusual hail-storm not only in 'Mendu and Mendu Extension' but also on all the cashew trees in surrounding villages resulting more than 80% of the crop was damaged in the auctioned garden of the plaintiff. Immediately, he gave a telegram to the defendants by informing about the hailstorm situation and requested them to come and inspect the area to assess the damage so that he can claim the amount by reimbursement. Accordingly, the 4th defendant visited the Mendu and Mendu Extension on 1.4.1989 and has taken photographs of the damaged garden. On the directions of the 1st defendant, the Mandal Revenue Officer and the Agricultural Officer of Kasibugga visited the said garden. The Agricultural Officer opined under Ex-A23 that the cashew nuts garden was damaged 80% and the remaining 20% fruits were also turned to blackish colour. At the fag end of the lease period, the respondent could collect only 59 bags of cashew nuts. Thereafter, the plaintiff requested the defendants to return the proportionate lease amount paid by him. As there was no response from the respondents, the plaintiff got issued a legal notice Ex-A24 to all the appellants under Section 80 C.P.C. claiming refund of the amount deposited at the time of entry into the agreement-Ex-A5. But the defendants neither sent reply to the notice nor settled the claim amount. Hence the plaintiff filed the suit for reimbursement of the amount under Ex-A5.