M S N CHARITIES KAKINADA Vs. PILLA RAMARAO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is plaintiff's appeal against the judgment and decree dated 25. 02. 1991 in o. S. No. 3 of 1989 on the file of the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Pithapuram. Suit for recovery of Rs. 2,46,584. 05ps was partly decreed and plaintiff is in appeal with regard to other part. During pendency of the appeal first respondent/first defendant died and his lrs are on record. Respondent Nos. 3 and 4/defendant Nos. 3 and 4 are represented by counsel. In spite of service of notice, defendant Nos. 2 and 6 have not chosen to enter appearance.

(2.) APPELLANT (hereafter called, plaintiff), which is an institution - Malladi Satyalingam nayikar Charities, Kakinada, for charitable purposes, statedly owns about 100 acres of fertilised lands. An extent of agricultural double crop wet land in Acs. 31. 64 comprised in survey Nos. 95/1 and 98/1 situated at fakhruddinpalem Village, Pithapuram mandal, East Godavari District, was leased out to defendants. Be it noted that second defendant is mother and defendant Nos. 1, 3 to 6 are her children, who had joint lease from 1955. The agreed makta was 242 kata bags (each 75 kgs) payable on or before 15th January of each year. Defendants did not pay makta for ten years for the period from 1978-79 to 1987-88. Plaintiff's institution filed the suit for recovery of makta for these years alleging that from 1977-78 to 1982-83 first defendant paid an amount of Rs. 60/- as part payment duly acknowledging the debt towards makta. It was further alleged that first defendant made part payment of rs. 90/- from 1977-78 to 1985-86, but failed to pay balance amount in spite of such fresh contract. Hence, the suit.

(3.) FIRST defendant filed written statement, which was adopted by second defendant. Defendant Nos. 3 to 6 remained ex parte. It is the case of defendant Nos. 1 and 2 that on account of various proceedings initiated by plaintiff, defendants could not realise the usufructs from the tenancy lands for 1978-79. For 1979-1980, defendants filed remission petitions and therefore, they cannot be said to be in arrears. For the years from 1980-1981 to 1987-88 defendants also filed remission petitions before Special Officer, pithapuram, which were pending and therefore, defendants cannot be said to be in arrears for payment of makta for the leased lands. Rent for 1986-87 and 1987-88 was paid completely in cash and therefore, plaintiff is not entitled to claim the amount. The allegation of plaintiff that there was fresh contract by reason of part payments was denied. Defendants further contended that they never entered into fresh contract and the suit is barred by limitation.