MUTHUVEERANNA CHETTIAR Vs. MUTHUVENKATARAMA CHETTIAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This civil misc. second appeal is against the order of the Dist. J., Tiruchirapalli, dated 13-2 1946, in A. S. No. 321 of 1943 filed against the order of the Dist. Munsif of Tiruchirapalli, dated 8-7-1943, in E. P. no. 505 of 1943 in O. S. No. 251 of 1932. The facts are briefly these :

(2.) One Kanakavallithayarammal sued her step son, Muthuvenkatarama Chettiar, & his minor son, Bhaskara Chettiar, for maintenance in O. S. no. 251 of 1932, District Munsif's Ct., Tiruchirapalli. The suit was decreed on 29-111932. Both the defts. were directed by the decree tp pay, on or before 29-31933, the maintenance accrued due to the pltf. at Rs. 14 per month from 1-71931 till the date of the decree, A future maintenance to the pltf. at Rs. 14 p.m. from the date of the decree during the life of the pltf., at the end of each year, & pltf.'s costs Rs. 85-2-6. The decree-holder, Kanakavallithayarammal, filed E. P. No. 272 of 1934 praying for the recovery of maintenance which bad accrued due till 1-1-1934 & costs of suit & execution. The amount claimed was Rs. 51813-0. The reliefs claimed in that E. P. were : (1) to attach the arrears of rents of Rs. 30 due at Rs. 15 each, per month from Ponnusami Pillai & Balusami Naidu, two tenants, regarding two shops belonging to the judgment-debtors; (2) for collecting the future rents from these two shops every month from them & depositing them regularly into Ct. with correct accounts, by appointing petnr. or anybody else, as the Ct. thought fit, as receiver for that purpose; (3) out of the rents thus attached, or collected by the receiver, the amount claimed in the E. P. to be paid to the petnr., & for that purpose, accounts of collections to be filed regularly every month by the Receiver appointed. The Dist. Munsif ordered the attachment of the arrears of rents payable by Ponnusami Pillai & Baiusami. The E.P. was filed in January 1934. On 11-5-1934, Ponnusami Pillai appeared in Ct. & said that he had paid advance rent enough to cover the rent payable till 15-5 1934 on which date he was quitting the premises. The fact has not now been disputed & Mr. Srinivasa Aiyar, for the applts. assures me that Ponnusami Pillai actually quitted the shop on 15-5-1934. Balusami Naidu appeared in Ct. on 28-6-1934 & stated that he had been a tenant under the judgment-debtors only till 15-4-1934, & had paid up his rent in full till then, & that nothing was payable by him, & that, indeed, the judgment debtors owed him some money out of the advance of rent paid by Mm, & that he had attorned after 15-4-1934, to the knowledge of the judgment-debtors to the mtgee. of the shop, one Muthulakshmi Ammal, from them & executed a registered lease-deed in her favour, & so could not be made to pay any rent into Ct. under this E. P. The Disb. Munsif found the contentions of these two tenants to be too complicated to be gone into in the E. p. So, he appointed the decree-holder herself, as Receiver, in E. A. No. 1274 of 1934, a petn. filed by the petnr. in that E. P. for the appointment of Receiver on 28-7-1934, & directed her to collect the arrears of rents from the two shops in question filing suits, if necessary, against Ponnusami Pillai & Balusami Naidu if they were really liable & to collect the future rents from the premises, from those liable, & deposit the amounts in Ct. to the credit of the E.P. as prayed for. Curiously enough, he 'closed' E.P. No. 272 of 1934 on 28-7 1934 itself without waiting for the Receiver to collect the arrear rents or future rents or to report inability to collect anything, or about the liability of Ponnuswami or Balusami & the advisability of filing suits against them & passing suitable orders, or asking or allowing the decree-holder to amend the E. P. and pursue other remedies like bringing the properties to sale. Sale had not been asked for in the first instance as the E. P. amount was small & was expected to be easily recovered from the rents. The decree-holder did not apply for permission to file a suit, & was also not able be collect a pie as rent. She was, it is said, a helpless & ignorant woman. She assign ed her rights to the arrears of maintenance till 20-2-1942 to the present petnr., finally, in despair. He filed E. P. No. 505 of 1943 for recognising him as the assignee decree-holder; for treating this petn. as a continuation of the E. P. No. 272 of 1934, which, he contended, had been improperly closed for statistical purposes; for continuing the old receiver & making her collect the rents or for discharging her & appointing another receiver; & for the sale of all the charged properties to realise the E. P. amount which now amounted to nearly Rs. 1900 odd.

(3.) The learned Dist. Munsif of Tiruchirapalli held that E. P. No. 272 of 1934 had not been improperly "closed" for statistical or other collateral purposes; that it was properly "closed" after granting or refusing all the reliefs prayed for, & that, therefore, it could not be revived; & that E. P. No. 505 of 1943 should be treated not as a continuation of E. P. No. 272 of 1934, as prayed for by the petnr., but as an entirely new petn. & only the amount claimable under the limitation law under this E. P. should be claimed. He dismissed the E. P. with costs because the petnr. was persisting in his plea that E. P. No. 212 of 1934 bad been improperly closed, & it was clear that he would not amend E. P. No. 505 of 1943, treating it as a new E. P. & reducing the amount to the amount claimable on that basis.