PANGOTI MANGARAO Vs. CHINNADI KISHAN RAO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal filed by the 2nd defendant in O. S. No. 11/1 of 1945, Sub Court, Karimnagar, under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent is directed against the judgment of Srinivasachari J. in Appeal No. 495 of 1957.

(2.) The essential facts may be shortly stated as follows: One Pingle Venkatarama Reddy, who had an abkari contract, entered into an agreement with the present plaintiff and defendants 1 to 3 under which a sublease of that contract was obtained by the latter as evidenced by a document marked as Ex. 1. On the basis of this agreement, Venkatarama Reddy filed a suit for the recovery of a sum of Rs. 8658-8-0 with interest thereon as against the plaintiff and the defendants herein. This claim was contested by the present plaintiff as well as the defendants, inter alia, on the defence that the suit agreement was not executed by them. It is unnecessary to follow the career of that litigation except to state that ultimately the erstwhile High Court of Hyderabad, before whom the matter went up in second appeal, held that the agreement was executed by all the four parties i.e., the present plaintiff and defendants and the plaintiff's claim was enforceable. However, a decree was given only against the present plaintiff and no relief was granted against the other defendants as the plaintiff therein had not carried any appeal against the judgment of the trial court dismissing the suit against them.

(3.) The present plaintiff then laid the action giving rise to this appeal in the court of the Subordinate Judge, Karimnagar, against the defendants for contribution of their share of the amount of the decree passed against him. Originally, the 2nd defendant remained ex parte; the suit was defended only by defendants 1 and 3 on the plea that they were not liable to contribute the responsibility to discharge the debt in question resting only on the plaintiff. A preliminary issue was raised as to whether the plaintiff had a cause of action against the defendants and as to whether the suit was liable to be dismissed in limine. The trial court held in favour of the defendants and rejected the plaint on the ground that there was no cause of action as against the defendants. Having been unsuccessful in obtaining the required relief in the first appeal before the then Sadar Adalat Court, he carried a further appeal to the High Court which set aside the decree by its judgment dated 20/03/1955 and directed an enquiry into the question as to whether the plaintiff had any cause of action. When the matter went back to the trial court as a result of this remand, a written statement was filed by the 2nd defendant urging, inter alia, that, inasmuch as the plaintiff had not paid the amount due under the decree until the date of the institution of a suit, he had no cause of action, which could form the basis of a suit and the suit was therefore liable to be dismissed. Consequent upon this plea, the plaintiff was obliged to file a rejoinder stating that he had paid the decree-holder the amount and as such he had a cause of action against the defendants.