VENKATARAMA REDDY, J.

( 1 ) THE plaintiff is the appellant herein. He filed a suit, O. S. No : 92/78 in the Court of the Principal District munsif, Elamanchili to recover from the defendant a sum of Rs. 1534. 87, being the rent due for the years 1976-77 and 1977-78. In respect of Ac. 6. 27 cents of had in s. No. 167/2 with subsequent interest and costs. It was alleged in the plaint that the defendant is cultivating Ac. 6. 27 cts. of land in S. No. 167/2 of Pulaparthi village as a tenant under his father on an yearly rent of Rs. 900/ -. The father of the plaintiff died on 11-5-1977. Claiming that the father of the plaintiff bequeathed all his properties in favour of the plaintiff under a registered will dated 24-2-1977, the plaintiff filed the suit for recovery of rent from the tenant.

( 2 ) THE defendant filed a written statement and contended that he was not aware of the registered will executed in favour of the plaintiff on 24-2-1977 and that on 20-11-1977 Abdul Khatija Beebj and others, who are the sisters of the plaintiff, gave notice alleging that they are the legal heirs by virtue of a will dated 1-6-1973, and that they are entitled to the rent due on the said land and that after receipt of the said notice the defendant issued a reply on 30-12-1977. The plaintiff also issued a notice dt. 12-4-78 to the defendant demanding rent for which a reply was sent by the defendant on 17-4-78. It was further alleged that the rent for the year 1976-77 was paid to the father of the plaintiff and the balance of cist for the years. 1977-78 i. e. balance rent of Rs. 570/- for the year 1977-78 was not paid because of the rival claims by the plaintiff and his sisters and that the defendant is ready to pay the balance of cist. It was also contended that since the sisters of him i. e. Abdul Khatija Beebi, Shaik Julaika, Shaik jucee Beebi, Mohammad Mymunniee, also are necessary parties to the suit and that as they were not made parties to the suit, the suit is liable to be dismissed.

( 3 ) ON the basis of the above pleadings the lower Court framed appropriate issues and are of the issues being whether Khatijabi and others are necessary parties to this suit. The trial court held that the discharge pleaded by the defendant with regard to the rent for the year 1976-77 was not established. It further held that disposition of the entire property under registered will dated 24-2-1977 in favour of the plaintiff is opposed to the principles of the Mohammadan law and the plaintiff is only entitled to 2/3rd share and 1/3rd share has to he divided among the plaintiff and his sisters etc. On the question of non-joinder of necessary parties, the trial Court held that the suit is filed merely for collection of rent and Katijabi and other legal heirs of mohammad Hussain are not necessary parties to the suit, and the suit is not bad for non-joinder of parlies. Hence the lower Court decreed the suit for recovery of Rs. 1108. 52 ps. with proportionate costs.

( 4 ) AGGRIEVED by the said judgment and decree, the defendant preferred A. S. No. 94/80 in the Court of the Subordinate judge, Chodavaram. The appellate Court agreed with the finding of the trial Court that the discharge pleaded by the defendant is not true. On the question whether the suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties, the appellate Court held that the sisters of the plaintiff are necessary parties to the suit and the suit is not maintainable in their absence. Accordingly, it allowed the appeal and reversed the judgment of the trial Court and dismissed the suit.

( 5 ) AGGRIEVED by the said judgment and decree the plaintiff preferred this second Appeal.

( 6 ) IN this Second Appeal, the only question that arises for consideration is : 1) Can a Co-owner or Co-sharer or co-heir maintain a suit for recovery of rent in respect of the joint property without making the other co-owners or co-sharers or co-heir a party to the suit in the absence of any agreement or consent by the other co-owners? bot

Click Here to Read the rest of this document