- (1.)The defendants are the tenants of a deity which is the plaintiff and they are members of a Hindu joint family. When the arrears of rent were not paid, defendant 1, who was the manager executed a bond for the payment of the amount which had become payable, and in the suit brought for recovery of the amount due under the bond, defendant 1 and his sons defendants 2 and 3 pleaded that the bond was a nominal document under which no consideration passed.
(2.)But both the Courts negatived that plea. They nevertheless dismissed the suit in the erroneous belief that the suit was for recovery of rent, which could be made only under S.30 of the Mysore Tenancy Act and so was barred by S.46 of, that Act. This view is plainly unsustainable for the reason that the suit was instituted not for the recovery of rent but for the recovery of the amount due under the bond.
(3.)Although the consideration for the bond was the accumulated rent, the money payable under the bond after its execution was no longer the rent, which was at an antecedent stage payable. What was then payable as rent, became transformed into money payable under the bond, whose recovery was possible only in a suit brought in the ordinary way and not under the provisions of S.30 of the Tenancy Act. So the bar of jurisdiction erected by S.46 of the Act could have no relevance.
;