Decided on November 28,1901



- (1.) Respondent as the lessee under the late Maharajah of Vizianagram, the predecessor in title of the defendant, under a registered instrument in writing, dated 11 November 1893, for a term of 7 years and 8 months ending wi June, 1901, brought this suit on the 11th November 1899, alleging that he has not been put in possession of the villages let to him and that in February 1898, defendant had recovered possession of the villages from the vendor who on the 23 October 1893, executed a registered sale-deed in favour of the late Maharajah of Vizagapatam, and praying that he may be put into possession of the village for a term of 8 years (meaning apparently 7 years and 8 months) either from the date of the plaint (11 November 1899) or from February 1898. He also claimed Rs. 2,000 for damages from February 1898 to the e July, 1899, presumably in the event of the term commencing from February 1898. He also claimed in the alternative that in the event of the Court holding that he cannot recover possession of the villages for the said term, he may be awarded as damages a sum not exceeding Rs. 9,000 in addition to the Rs. 2,000 already referred to. The defendant, while admitting the lease sued upon, resisted the suit by alleging that the plaintiff who was the manager of the vendor of the villages in question, instigated the vendor to contend that the sale-deed was false and inoperative and in collusion with the vendor prevented the vendee, the lessor of the plaintiff, from getting possession of the villages and that the plaintiff also forfeited the lease by his misconduct. The defendant also pleaded that even if the lease is to be enforced, the plaintiff can be put into possession only till June 1901 and that the claim for damages is unsustainable. The following issues were framed: (1). Whether the lease in favour of plaintiff has become inoperative by plaintiff's conduct (collusion and denial of title)? (2). Whether it is forfeited? (3). Whether the plaintiff sustained any, and if so, what damages? (4). If the lease is valid and binding on defendant, whether the term of 8 years can now be enforced? (5). What relief is plaintiff entitled to?
(2.) On the 23 April 1900 the District Judge passed a decree in favour of the plaintiff directing the defendant to deliver possession of the villages to the plaintiff for 8 years from February 1898 together with profits for the year 1899--1900, and subsequent profits till date of delivery besides paying Rs. 2,000 on account of damages for the plaintiff having been kept out of possession from February 1898 to the date of the suit (11 November 1899).
(3.) Against this decree the defendant appeals and the chief contentions raised in support of the appeal are: (1) that the decree for possession for 8 years from February 1898 is in any event clearly wrong; (2) that it was owing to the plaintiff's obstruction that the lessor(the defendant) was unable to get possession from the vendor and put the plaintiff in possession of the villages; (3) that the plaintiff (respondent) has forfeited the lease by reason of his conduct both before and during the prosecution by the defendant of O.S. No. 34of 18P4 instituted by the defendant against the vendor for the recovery of the villages; and (4) that the suit is barred by the law of limitation.;

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