KRISHNA BHATTA Vs. NARAYANA ACHARY AND ANR.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner sued to recover arrears of rent due under a mulgeni chit, enhanced assessment and half cess with interest thereon due for two years 1943 -44 and 1944 -45 from the two respondents. The District Munsiff of Karikal who tried the suit passed a decree in his favour though not for the entire amount claimed. The decree was against the two defendants severally and against each in respect of a moiety of the total amount found due.

(2.) THREE points were taken by Mr. Krishna Rao, the learned Advocate for the petitioner, in revision. The first is that the two defendants should have been made jointly and severally liable for the decree amount. To appreciate this point it is necessary to state a few facts. On 1st June, 1900, one Sankarayachari executed the mulgeni chit on which the suit is based in favour of the plaintiff's father. The tenant sold his leasehold interest to one Appu Bhandari in 1917, Ex. D -1. On 28th May, 1926, Appu Bhandari in his turn transferred the interest which he obtained from Sankarayachari in favour of Rangu Hengsu the mother of the two respondents. After Rangu Hengsu's death, the two respondents in this petition were in enjoyment of the demised property jointly. On 11th May, 1943, the two respondents effected a division between them by a registered partition deed, Ex. D -6, in accordance with which they have been enjoying the plaint mulgeni in two moieties. The learned District Munsiff held that because of this partition each of the defendants was only severally liable for a moiety of the rent to the plaintiff.

(3.) WHEN there is a lease in favour of a single person as a tenant and when that tenant dies, the liability of the heirs would be a joint liability -See Krishna Das Roy v. Kali Tara Chowdhurani : 22 C.W.N. 289. The principle being that heirs of the original tenant constitute one body and there is only a joint liability. Chatterjee, J., says at page 294.