Defendant No.9 (D-9, for short) in O.s.No.39 of 1995 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Srikalahasti laid the present appeal against the sole plaintiff and defendants 1 to 8. The suit was filed for recovery of Rs. 3,15,730/-. It is claimed that the share of the rent of the first plaintiff for leasing out the premises to D-9 was at Rs.2,700/- per month, as the rent of the premises was Rs.13,500/- per month and that the plaintiff holding 20% interest in the premises is entitled to Rs. 2,700/- per month. The claim was from 01.10.1990 till 15.08.1995 at a total of Rs. 1,26,900/-. The plaintiff sought interest at 24% per annum and claimed a total of Rs. 3,15,730/-.

2. The plaintiff, defendants 1 to 4 and one M.C. Nagaraja (husband of the fifth defendant) constituted a firm under the name and style of Sri Paramjyothi Kumara Swamy Rice Mill. The partnership deed was executed on 25.02.1987. Late Nagaraja died prior to the date of suit. The plaintiff, consequently, impleaded the wife of Nagaraja as fifth defendant and the children of Nagaraja as defendants 6 to 8 in the suit. The firm was doing business in hulling paddy and other analogous and miscellaneous activities.

3. The plaintiff laid O.S.No.26 of 1991 on the file of the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Srikalahasti for the dissolution of the partnership firm and for rendition of accounts. The plaintiff also filed O.S.No.28 of 1993 on the file of the Principal District Munsif, Srikalahasti for perpetual injunction against strangers from interfering with the partnership firm. The partners of the firm other than the plaintiff leased out the rice mill of the firm to D-9 for a period of three years with effect from 01.08.1987 (concluding on 30.09.1990). The rent was fixed at Rs. 7,000/- per month. When the lease was sought to be renewed at Rs. 13,500/- per month, the plaintiff did not agree for the proposal. It would appear that the plaintiff was interested to take the rice mill and run the same personally. Without bothering for the consent of the plaintiff, the lease was renewed in favour of D-9 on a monthly rent of Rs.13,500/-. The share of the plaintiff in the rent is Rs.2,700/per month, as he owns 20% of the partnership business. The plaintiff laid the suit contending that D-9 stopped paying the share of the plaintiff to the plaintiff for which D-9 is liable. The plaintiff, consequently, laid the suit for the rent at Rs. 2,700/- per month from 01.10.1990 till 15.08.1995 together with interest at 24% per annum thereof.

4. Curiously, defendants 1 to 8 also contested the case because this is in fact a fight between the plaintiff and D-9 as a lessee. The defendants 1 to 8 contended that they are not necessary parties to this case. They also claimed that the lease stood expired with effect from 01.04.1993.

5. D-9 contended that there is no privity of contract between the plaintiff and D-9. He contended that the very suit is misconceived where plaintiff laid the suit for dissolution of the firm.

6. Initially, issue relating to the question of limitation was framed. Subsequently, additional issues were framed by the trial Court, out of which issue No.5 deals with the plea of privity of contract. The trial Court held that there is no privity of contract. The trial Court also held that the plaintiff was not entitled to interest over the total amount of Rs.70,700/-. Inter alia, the suit, however, was decreed by the trial Court on compassionate grounds.

7. It would appear that the plaintiff was satisfied with the judgment and decree for a sum of Rs.70,700/-, He did not prefer any appeal. D-9 against whom the decree was granted preferred the present appeal contending that no amounts are payable by D-9 to the plaintiff. His case is that whatever amounts that are payable as rent by D-9 were paid to the firm and it is for the partners to allocate the rents among themselves as per their understanding. He primarily contended that there is no privity of contract between the plaintiff and D-9 an