VENKATESWARULU Vs. KRISHNA MURTHY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Revision petition is directed against the order dated 28th March, 1991, allowing the I.A.493/89 in O.S.21/75 on ,the file of the learned Subordinate Judge, Madanapalli. The circumstances which lead for the filing of I.A.493 of 1989 are the following:

(2.) The revision petitioner and R-1 to R-6 are the owners of a Cinema Haii known as 'Jyothi' theatre, situated at Madanapalli. In view of the disputes between the parties, the revision petitioner filed O.S.21/75 on the file of the learned Subordinate Judge, Madanapalli, for partition and separate possession of his 7/30th share in the properties including the Joythi threatre. Admittedly, the first respondent who is the 6th defendant in the suit is having a half share in the said property. In the suit in I.A.294/75 Sri R.Sreenivasa Sastry an advocate was appointed as Receiver to manage the entire estate. The said Receiver took possession of the Cinema Hall on 1-5-86 and in the auction held the 6th respondent figured as the highest bidder at Rs.25,001-00 per month for the Jyothi theatre. Clause 17 of the conditions of lease permits the auction purchaser to spend certain amounts towards Projectors etc., and alleging that he spent Rs.1,94,896-56 ps. the first respondent laid claim before the Receiver. The Receiver having examined the matter, approved a sum of Rs.91,775-40 ps. and has not approved the balance. Aggrieved by the action of the Receiver in not approving the balance of the amount, the first respondent herein filed I.A.493/89 to ratify the entire expenditure made by him for improving the Cinema Hall in question. Having considered the matter, the learned Subordinate Judge allowed the application ratifying the total expenditure said to have been incurred by the first respondent, and held that he was entitled to recover the said amount with interest thereon at 18% per annum and permitted him to adjust the said amount out of the lease amount payable by him towards the theatre. Aggrieved by the said orders, the revision petitioner has filed this petition.

(3.) At the outset it is to be noted that the contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that in the event of the first respondent seeking ratification of the amounts spent by him, he has to come up with a separate suit. This submission is not correct. In O.S.21/75 Sri R.Sreenivasa Sastry was appointed as Receiver. He auctioned the leasehold rights so far as the cinema hall was concerned and the first respondent herein figured as the highest bidder. As per Clause 17 of the conditions of lease, the first respondent is permitted to spend some amount and adjust the said amount towards the rental payable by him. So, in the event of mere being any dispute regarding the same, that is a matter to be considered in the same suit and there is no necessity to file a separate suit for the said purpose.