K MANGA RAJU Vs. VENUGOPALASWAMIVARU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Second Appeal arises out of a suit (O. S. No. 49 of 1955, Sub court Kakinada) filed by the managing trustee of Sri Venugopalaswamyvaru Devastlninam of Viravada, for the recovery of a sum of Rs. 5,517-4-6 being the rent due in respect of the temple lands demised to the 1st defendant. The circumstances under which the suit was filed are briefly these :--

(2.) On 19-3-1950, the then trustees of Devasthanam caused a public auction to be held for leasing out an extent of 11-69 acres of the temple lands for four years, Vikruty, Khara, Nandana and Vijaya. The 1st defendant was highest bidder. The sale of the lease hold was, therefore knocked down in his favour. He executed a registered muchilika (Ex. A-l) on 18-4-1950 covenanting to pay Rs. 2,890/- per year, and entered upon the demised lands. He paid the rent for Vikruty, though beyond the stipulated lime. He did not pay the rent for the year Khara. The Board of Trustees of the Devasthanam authorised the then managing trustee (the second defendant in this suit) to take action against the 1st defendant for realising the arrears of rent. Accordingly he instituted O. S. No. 51 of 1953, on the file of the District Munsifs Court, Peddapuram, against the 1st defendant for the recovery of the rent for the year Khara and the balance of interest due on the rent for the year Vikruty. During the pendency of the suit, the plaintiff in this suit, Minyala Lingarajui was appointed as the managing trustee and he was brought on record in the place of the 2nd defendant. The learned District Munsif gave the 1st defendant credit for some amount and passed a decree for the balance. In appeal by the 1st defendant, the learned Subordinate Judge, varied the amounts of deduction and confirmed the decree for the payment of rent.

(3.) The rents for the years Nandana and Vijaya were due. Therefore, the Devasthanam filed the present suit for the recovery of rent for those two years. The plaintiff--Devasthanam in the present suit prays, first, for a decree against the 1st defendant in a sum of Rs. 5,517-4-6, with interest being the rent for Nandana and Vijaya, and secondly, if for any reason the 1st defendant is held not liable for any portion of the rent claimed, a decree may be passed against the 2nd defendant for that amount.