Back
Andhra Pradesh High Court
Judges : M.SESHACHALAPATI
K.Manga Raju - Appellant
Versus
Venugopalaswamivaru - Respondent
Decided On : 01-08-63
RENT RECOVERY - HINDU RELIGIOUS ENDOWMENTS ACT, 1951 - SECTION 24 - TRUSTEE'S LIABILITY - NEGLIGENCE - MISJOINDER OF PARTIES - ORDER 31, RULE 2, CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE - DECREE AGAINST ONE TRUSTEE ALONE - INVALIDITY.
Fact of the Case:
A suit was filed by the managing trustee of a temple for the recovery of rent due in respect of temple lands demised to the defendant. The defendant claimed a rebate on the ground of non-execution of repairs, set up a plea of discharge of rent, and contended that the claim for rent for one year was barred under Order 2, Rule 2, Civil Procedure Code (CPC). The trial court found that the discharge pleaded by the defendant was false, held the claim for the year barred under Order 2, Rule 2, CPC, and held that the suit was bad for misjoinder of parties and causes of action, but nevertheless agreed with the finding of the trial court that the second defendant was liable to make good the loss sustained by the Devasthanam in respect of the rent for the year.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the claim for rent for the year was barred under Order 2, Rule 2, CPC, as it could have been included in a previous suit but was not. The court also held that the second defendant was not liable to make good the loss sustained by the Devasthanam in respect of the rent for the year, as there was no specific plea of negligence in the plaint, the second defendant did not act with wilful negligence, and all the trustees should have been impleaded in the suit under Order 31, Rule 2, CPC.
Issues: 1. Whether the claim for rent for the year was barred under Order 2, Rule 2, CPC? 2. Whether the second defendant was liable to make good the loss sustained by the Devasthanam in respect of the rent for the year?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the claim for rent for the year was barred under Order 2, Rule 2, CPC, as it could have been included in a previous suit but was not. The court relied on the fact that the rent for the year had become due by the time of filing of the previous suit, but was not included in that suit. 2. The court held that the second defendant was not liable to make good the loss sustained by the Devasthanam in respect of the rent for the year, as there was no specific plea of negligence in the plaint, the second defendant did not act with wilful negligence, and all the trustees should have been impleaded in the suit under Order 31, Rule 2, CPC. The court relied on the fact that the second defendant had not been shown to have acted with wilful negligence, and that all the trustees should have been impleaded in the suit under Order 31, Rule 2, CPC.
Final Decision: The court allowed the appeal, set aside the judgments and decree of the courts below, and dismissed the suit against the second defendant. The court also dismissed the memorandum of cross-objections filed by the first defendant and the Devasthanam.
( 1 ) THIS Second Appeal arises out of a suit (O. S. No. 49 of 1955, Sub court Kakinada) filed by the managing trustee of Sri Venugopalaswamyvaru Devastlninam of Viravada, for the recovery of a sum of Rs. 5,517-4-6 being the rent due in respect of the temple lands demised to the 1st defendant. The circumstances under which the suit was filed are briefly these :--
( 2 ) ON 19-3-1950, the then trustees of Devasthanam caused a public auction to be held for leasing out an extent of 11-69 acres of the temple lands for four years, Vikruty, Khara, Nandana and Vijaya. The 1st defendant was highest bidder. The sale of the lease hold was, therefore knocked down in his favour. He executed a registered muchilika (Ex. A-l) on 18-4-1950 covenanting to pay Rs. 2,890/- per year, and entered upon the demised lands. He paid the rent for Vikruty, though beyond the stipulated lime. He did not pay the rent for the year Khara. The Board of Trustees of the Devasthanam authorised the then managing trustee (the second defendant in this suit) to take action against the 1st defendant for realising the arrears of rent. Accordingly he instituted O. S. No. 51 of 1953, on the file of the District Munsifs Court, Peddapuram, against the 1st defendant for the recovery of the rent for the year Khara and the balance of interest due on the rent for the year Vikruty. During the pendency of the suit, the plaintiff in this suit, Minyala Lingarajui was appointed as the managing trustee and he was brought on record in the place of the 2nd defendant. The learned District Munsif gave the 1st defendant credit for some amount and passed a decree for the balance. In appeal by the 1st defendant, the learned Subordinate Judge, varied the amounts of deduction and confirmed the decree for the payment of rent.
( 3 ) THE rents for the years Nandana and Vijaya were due. Therefore, the Devasthanam filed the present suit for the recovery of rent for those two years. The plaintiff--Devasthanam in the present suit prays, first, for a decree against the 1st defendant in a sum of Rs. 5,517-4-6, with interest being the rent for Nandana and Vijaya, and secondly, if for any reason the 1st defendant is held not liable for any portion of the rent claimed, a decree may be passed against the 2nd defendant for that amount.
( 4 ) THE 1st defendant raised various pleas in his written statement. He claimed a rebate on the ground of non-execution of repairs. He set up a plea of discharge of rent in a sum of Rs. 1,430/ -. He contended that, in any event, the plaintiff-devasthanam cannot claim against him the rent for the year Nandana, as such a claim was not included in O. S, No. 51 of 1953, on the file of the District Munsifs Court, Peddapuram, and that, therefore, the present claim for that amount was barred under Order 2, Rule 2, Civil P. C. He denied his liability to pay the rent for the year Vijaya.
( 5 ) THE 2nd defendant the quondam managing trustee denied the receipt of the sum of Rs. 1,430/-towards the rent for the year Nandana. He pleaded that there was no basis for impleading him in the present action and that, in any event, the suit is bad for misjoinder ot parties and causes of action.
( 6 ) THE trial Court framed the relevant issues, and found on a review of the evidence, first, that there was no non-joinder or misjoinder of parties or causes of action, secondly, that the payment of Rs. 1,430/- by the 1st defendant to the 2nd defendant in partial discharge of the rent due for the year Nandana had not been made out ; thirdly, that inasmuch as the rent for Nandana, though accrued due by the time of filing of O. S. No. 51 of 1953, was not included in that suit, the present claim for the rent of Nandana is barred under Order 2, H. 2, Civil P. C. ; and fourthly that for the non-inclusion of the claim for the Nandana rent in O. S. No. 51/53, the second defendant was primarily responsible and, therefore, he was liable to make good the loss sustained by the plaintiff-Devast
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
