C VENKATASETTY Vs. RANGASETTY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition is against the judgment and decree of the Munsiff of Srirangapatna in S C. No. 29 of 50-51 on his file dismissing the suit, filed for the recovery of rent.

(2.) The case of the Plaintiff is that the first defendant took the schedule house on rent from the plaintiff and his brother the second defendant on monthly rent of Rs. 5/- and executed an agreement dated 2-12-47 in favour of both of them. The first defendant pleaded that he paid rents to the hands of the second defendant and handed over possession of the suit house on 16-12-18. The second defendant was ex parte, but was examined as a witness for the first defendant. In his evidence he supports the case of the first defendant.

(3.) The learned Munsiff has held that the discharge pleaded by the first defendant by payment of rent to the second defendant is binding on the plaintiff. This is a case in which the lease deed had been executed both in favour of the plaintiff and the second defendant. It has to be said that the learned Munsiff was wrong in thinking that payment of rent to one of the landlords discharged the liability to the other. I may here refer to the decision reported in 'ABDUL HAKIM v. ADYATA CHANDRA DAS', 22 Cal W N 1021; 'CHOCKA-LINGAM CHETTY v. PERIYA KARUPPAN CHET-TY', 28 Mad L J 197 & 'GENDAL RAJU v. MAGAN LAL CHHAGAN LAL', 113 Ind Cas 618. As against these decisions, there is no doubt a decision of the Madras High Court reported in 'ANNAPUR-NAMMA v. U. AKKAYYA', 36 Mad 544 & the different views of different High Courts have been traversed in the case reported in '7 Mys L J 379', and it was held, following '23 Mys H. C. R. 148.',