RAMINEEDI RAMACHANDRA RAO, MINOR BY MOTHER AND GUARDIAN, TAYARAMMA Vs. SRI RAJAH INUGANTI RAJAGOPALA VENKATA NARASIMHANARAYANAMGARU AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE main point urged before me by the learned Counsel for the appellant in this second appeal, the third defendant in the suit, was that the lower appellate Court was not entitled in law to dismiss the appeal with costs on the ground that he had not deposited " the admitted amount" in the trial Court. He urged that the trial Court had not exercised its powers under Section 192(5) pf the Madras Estates Land Act and refused to take cognizance of the appellant's plea that the rent claimed was in excess of the amount due, and that, therefore, the lower appellate Court had no power to exercise that power, and dismiss the appeal, without at least passing an order directing the appellant to pay into Court the amount so admitted to be due, or such reasonable portion of the amount which the Court might direct, as the section itself requires. I agree. Neither side is able to tell me now what was the rent admitted as due by this appellant, except that he admitted it to be Rs. 600 per year; but, as he has claimed that the plaintiff was the " land -holder " only for every alternative year, the defendants being landlords in the intervening years, and as he has also contended that some of the instalments of rent claimed in this suit have become barred by limitation, it is not clear what exactly was the amount of rent admitted by him to be due to the plaintiff landholder. It had to be worked out. The trial Court and the lower appellate Court did not mention the amount due, and did not work it out. Hence the inability of the Counsel on both sides to tell me at once what the admitted amount is.

(2.) IT is also clear that, once the trial Court tries the suit on merits, taking also this plea of excess rent into consideration and discussion, and does not take the powers conferred on it by Section 192(5) for refusing to take cognizance of the plea regarding the excess rent, due to failure to deposit the admitted rent, the appellate Court can exercise that power only after going through the procedure prescribed by Section 192(5) of the Madras Estates Land Act. There is nothing unreasonable in this. It is only like giving reasons every time a judgment -debtor is ordered to be arrested and sent to a Civil jail, whether by the trial Court or by the appellate Court. It is not even enough if reasons are given once. They must at least be referred to again in unmistakable terms, and accepted once more, when ordering the arrest again. The lower appellate Court did not at all advert to this, and pass an order directing the appellant to deposit the admitted amount, naming it specifically, or such reasonable portion of it, as it may direct, within the time to be named by it. When a Court has got powers under the statute to reduce the amount to be deposited and may order the whole amount or a part of it to be deposited, it is obvious that it must pass an order stating the amount required to be deposited before enforcing the prescribed penalty.

(3.) IN the end, therefore, I set aside the lower appellate Court's order of dismissal of the appeal, and remand the appeal to the lower appellate Court for fresh disposal in the light of the above observations, and after passing an order under Section 192(5) if it deems fit, naming the amount required to be deposited, and giving the appellant three months' time from the date of its order for such deposit. When disposing of the appeal, it will, of course, consider also the other pleas of the appellant and the alleged error in the trial Court's decree in giving a decree only in the name of the plaintiff and not in he name of defendants 1 and 2 also. In the circumstances, the costs of this second appeal will abide and be provided for by the lower appellate Court, when disposing of the appeal afresh.