Decided on August 25,1954

Anne Viraraghavayya Appellant
Alapati Gopala Rao Respondents


Subba Rao, C.J. - (1.) THIS Second Appeal arises out of O.S. No. 262 of 1948, a suit filed by the respondent for recovery of makta from the Appellant.
(2.) THE facts admitted or found are briefly narrated. The plaint schedule property was originally owned by the 2nd Defendant. The Plaintiff's father purchased the same in execution of a decree obtained against the 2nd Defendant. After the purchase, he leased out the suit land to the 1st Defendant for five years under Exhibit A -1 dated 7 -5 -1941. Subsequently, the 2nd Defendant filed O.S. No. 134 of 1942 against the Plaintiff's father and the 1st Defendant for setting aside the decree and the Court sale and for possession. The suit was decreed on 31 -7 -1943. The Plaintiff preferred an appeal against that decree, being A.S. No. 328 of 1943. The appeal was allowed on 7 -9 -1945, and the title of the Plaintiff's father was affirmed. Pending the appeal on 6 -12 -1943, the Plaintiff filed an application for stay of execution of the decree and for a temporary injunction restraining the 2nd Defendant from cutting and carrying away the crops. The 1st Defendant also filed an application for temporary injunction. On 14 -12 -1943, the Court made an interim order directing the crops not to be cut and posted the application for final enquiry to 16 -12 -1943. On 1612 -1943, final orders were made staying execution and directing the 2nd Defendant not to remove the crops. Notwithstanding the said orders, the 2nd Defendant cut and carried away the crops. In 1944, the 2nd Defendant entered the land. The 1st Defendant filed O.S. No. 276 of 1944 against the 2nd Defendant and obtained a decree for the value of the crops removed by her. The Plaintiff filed the aforesaid suit for recovery of the rent due for three years 1943 to 1946. The 1st Defendant raised the plea that he had been evicted by a person with title paramount, and therefore, he was not liable to pay the rent due to the Plaintiff.
(3.) THE learned District Munsif held that the 1st Defendant was evicted by title paramount and, therefore, the suit for rent was not maintainable. On appeal, the learned Subordinate Judge took a contrary view and decreed the suit. Hence the appeal.;

Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.