KASIM BAIG Vs. AMBARAPU GANGAMMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed by the plaintiffs againt an order of the learned District Judge, West Godavari, Eluru, setting aside a decree passed by the First Additional District Munsif Eluru, in OS,No.757 of 1975 directing the defendants therein to pay a sum of Rs.275/-as arrears of rent due to the plaintiffs in respect of a vacant site of about 861.26 Sq. Metres situated in T.S. No 873 in 11th Ward, Eluru, belonging to Latiff Shaw Takya as per the terms of a registered lease deed dated 2-1-1970.

(2.) Latiff Shaw Tekya, a Muslim Trust, is the owner of the aforesaid vacant site measuring about 861.26 Sq. metres situated in Eluru town. Under a registered lease deed dated 2-1.1970 the aforesaid vacant site was leased out to the first defendant and the husband of the second defendant. The lessees were put in possession of the demised property. According to the terms of that lease deed the defendants agreed to pay the landlord a monthly rent of Rs. 20/- for a period of five years but the defendants defaulted to pay the rent for the period 1-9-72 to 1-9-75. The plaintiffs, therefore, sued the defendants for recovery of the rent due from the defendants under the aforesaid lease deed. The suit was contested by the defendants on two grounds. The first ground was that the persons who acted as trustees for the aforesaid Latiff Shaw Tekya and who now sued the defendants were not the trustees of that Muslim trust and had therefore no right to sue for the recovery of rent and that as one Abdul Gaffoor and his legal heirs and another Shaik Ameer are claiming to be real trustees and demanding rents, they should have been added as parties to the suit, particularly when the rivals were declared as trustees in OS.No. 156/60 which was confirmed by a judgment in AS. No. 7/65. The trial Court framed the following issues: 1. Whether the lease deed dated 2-1-70 is not executed by the plaintiffs by playing fraud, misrepresentation and under threat of eviction by the first defendant and husband of the second defendant? 2. Whether the plaintiffs have a right to collect the rent from the defendants?

(3.) Whether the suit is bad for non-joinder of proper and necessary parties?