C.V. Nagarjuna Reddy, J. - (1.) THIS Appeal arises out of the judgment and decree, dated 03 -05 -1994, in OS.No.87 of 1985 on the file of the Court of the learned Subordinate Judge, Narsapur.
(2.) FOR convenience, the parties shall be hereinafter referred to as arrayed in the suit.
(3.) ORIGINALLY , one Polisetti Satyanarayana Rao, who is the husband of respondent No. 1 and father of respondent Nos. 2 to 4, filed the above -mentioned suit for delivery of possession of the plaint schedule property comprising Acs.6 -00 of land in R.S. Nos. 68 and 70 of Veeravasaram Village, Podur Taluk, West Godavari District, for recovery of a sum of Rs. 50,119 -20 ps., towards past profits with subsequent interest from the date of plaint till the date of payment, for future profits at the rate to be determined by the Court from the date of suit till the date of delivery of possession, to appoint a receiver to manage the plaint schedule property during the pendency of the suit and for costs. The plaintiff has pleaded that the defendant has taken the suit land on lease; that for Acs.4 -00 cents out of the plaint schedule land the maktha (rent) payable was 12 bags per acre for sarva and 10 bags per acre for Dalwa and for the remaining Acs.2 -00 cents, the maktha payable was 15 bags per acre for Sarva and 10 bags per acre for Dalwa. The Sarva maktha is payable by 15th of January every year and the Dalwa maktha is payable by 15th of May every year; that the said land was taken on lease by the defendant in the year 1979; that having entered into possession of the plaint schedule land as a lessee, the defendant has not been paying the maktha in spite of demands made by the plaintiff, and was appropriating the entire produce by himself; that the plaintiff has caused registered notice, dated 26 -06 -1984 issued on the defendant demanding payment of maktha and that having received the same, the defendant has issued registered notice, dated 11 -07 -1984, with false and frivolous contentions. In the said reply, the defendant has denied the tenancy and alleged that the plaintiff has entered into an agreement of sale with him in respect of the plaint schedule property at Rs. 14,000/ - per acre before Polisetti Vasudeva Rao and Polisetti Veera Raghava Rao, who happened to be the brothers of the plaintiff and one Mutyala Ranganayakulu, father -in -law of Polisetti Vasudeva Rao; and that under the said agreement of sale, the defendant has paid a sum of Rs. 79,000/ - to the said Polisetti Vasudeva Rao towards the sale consideration in installments and obtained his signatures in his account book. The defendant has also called upon the respondent to receive the balance amount and execute the sale deed in his favour. On receipt of the said reply, the plaintiff has got another registered legal notice issued to the defendant on 26 -10 -1985 by way of a rejoinder, in which the defendant was called upon to hand over possession of the plaint schedule property and pay the profits.;