LAWS(MAD)-1947-4-36

BHAGAVATULA PANKALA RAO Vs. KADIYALA VENKATASUBBAYYA

Decided On April 16, 1947
BHAGAVATULA PANKALA RAO Appellant
V/S
KADIYALA VENKATASUBBAYYA Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner sued to recover an amount of seigniorage which he had been required to pay to the Government, alleging that this amount should have been paid by the respondent under the terms of an unregistered lease for quarrying limestone. The lease provided that the respondent should have the right for four years to quarry limestone in the petitioner's land in consideration of payment of rent for Rs. 200 and on the respondent undertaking to pay the seigniorage due to the Government. The rent was paid and according to the findings of the Court below the seigniorage was not paid by the respondent although the respondent did quarry limestone. The result was that the petitioner's land was attached and the petitioner was obliged to pay the seigniorage to the Government.

(2.) THERE was a previous suit, S.C. No. 157 of 1944, filed by the petitioner against the respondent and two other individuals who were alleged to have similarly defaulted in connection with another lease. Objection was taken in this suit to the misjoinder of the two causes of action. Before the parties went to trial the advocate for the plaintiff endorsed on the record as follows:

(3.) I am also inclined to agree with the trial Court on the further question whether the lease is admissible in evidence having regard to the fact that it is unregistered. It has been argued that the covenant by the lessee to pay the seigniorage charge to the Government is a collateral obligation not affecting Immovable property and that evidence of this covenant can be given even though the lease as a lease should have been registered. This argument seems to me to overlook the fact that the obligation of the respondent to pay seigniorage charge to the Government is just as much part of the consideration for the lease as the obligation of the respondent to pay the rent to the petitioner. On both grounds, therefore, I am of opinion that the petition must fail. The petition is therefore dismissed with costs.