CHALLA APPAYYA Vs. DESETTI CHANDRA AYYA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Upon the facts set out in para. 6 of the learned District Munsiff's judgment, I think the conclusion that the learned District Munsif has come to is right and his decision will have to be upheld. The plaintiffs in this case filed a suit to recover a sum of Rs. 110-5-6 which sum had been recovered from the plaintiffs by the Bobbili estate as and towards arrears of rent due in respect of lands for which the plaintiffs' maternal grandfather was pattadar. The plaintiffs are the heirs of their maternal grandfather who held lands under Bobbili estate in patta No. 44. That maternal grandfather of the plaintiffs had sold away the lands in the zamindary about 20 years ago to the defendants by Exs. D-1 and D-2 in the present suit out of which the petition has arisen. Ever since the said gale the defendants had been in enjoyment of the lands and the plaintiffs have had nothing to do with the same. The defendants did not pay rent for Faslis 1342, 1343, 1344 and 1345 in respect of lands purchased by them though they had paid the rent for the previous faslis and also for the subsequent faslis. Thereupon the Rajah of Bobbili filed a suit and obtained a decree for arrears of cist in S. S. No. 75 of 1936 against the plaintiffs as being the pattadars. The plaintiffs did not contest the suit and in execration of the decree obtained against the plaintiffs a sum of Rs. 110-5-6 was recovered from the plaintiffs by attachment of the movable assets of the plaintiffs in or about 14th February 1946.

(2.) The plaintiffs' contention is that the defendants who were the owners of the lands had to pay the said arrears of rent but since the Bobbili estate had recovered the said arrears of rent from the plaintiffs, the plaintiffs were entitled to claim reimbursement and the defendants were bound to make good the amount as they had enjoyed the benefit of the same. The plaintiffs urged that either under Section 69 or Section 70, Contract Act, their claim against the defendants for the amount recovered from them by the Bobbili estate was tenable and the plaintiffs had a right to be reimbursed by the defendants.

(3.) The defendants denied that the amount in question was due by them to the Rajah of Bobbili and contended that the plaintiffs were not entitled to claim any reimbursement. Their further argument was that neither Section 69 nor Section 70, Contract Act, would apply to the case. As regards the contention of the defendants that they have not committed any default in the payment of rent to the Rajah of Bobbili for the faslis in question, the learned District Munsif held that the defendants had not paid the cist for the said period to the Bobbili estate and the receipts, viz., Ex. D-8, filed by the defendants did not cover the faslis mentioned in Ex. P-2 and gave a finding accordingly.