SRI THIAGARAJASWAMI DEVASTANAM TIRUKKAYALAI Vs. KAMALAPPA THEVAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is preferred by the plaintiff Sri Thiagarajaswami Devastanam by its hereditary trustee Sri-la-Sri Subramania Desika Gnanasambanda Pandarasannidhi against the judgment of the District Judge of East Tanjore dismissing its suit for a claim for Rs. 6749-10-9 against the defendants and for a charge against certain items of properties.

(2.) THE first defendant and one Subbiah Thevar now deceased, took on lease 51 acres 78 cents of lands belonging to the plaintiff Devastanams on 28-12-1944. The lease was for a period of five years and the properties specified in the schedule to the plaint belonged to Subbiah Thevar and were given as security for the due payment of the rent and for fulfilment of the other conditions of the lease. The extent of security was limited to one year's lease that is Rs. 210o. Defendants 2 and 3 are Subbiah Thevar's son's widows. Defendant 4 is Subbiah Thevar's son's adopted son. Defendant 5 is the wife of the first defendant and defendants 6 and 7 are their children. Defendants 8 and 9 are the alliances of the properties secured under the lease deed. Defendants 2 to 7 are impleaded as legal representatives and persons in possession of the estate of Subbiah Thevar and defendant 6 is also sought to be made liable as the undivided son of the first defendant.

(3.) THE defendants defaulted in payment of rent and the plaintiff filed O. S. No. 301 of 1946 on the file of the District Munsif's court, Thiruthurapuddi for recovery of rent due for faslis 1354 and 1355. The plaintiff also prayed for Enforcement of security given in the lease deed. The plaintiff obtained a decree for a sum of Rs. 125o. The defendants again defaulted in payment of rent for fasli 1356 and the plaintiff filed O. S. 267 of 1947 for recovery of rent due for that fasli. After the filing of the suit O. S. No. 267 of 1947, the plaintiff applied for the appointment of a receiver to take possession of the leasehold lands. A receiver was appointed in o. S. No. 267 of 1947 and he continued to be in possession during faslis 1357 and 1358. The present suit was filed by the plaintiff for recovery of the rent for faslis 1357 and 1358 and for a charge on the properties secured under the lease deed.