MARIPATI PATTABHIRAMAYYA Vs. MORSA NAGIAH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a revision petition under section 25 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, arising out of Small Cause Suit No. 107 of 1959 on the file of the Subordinate Judge's Court, Bapatla. That suit was filed for the recovery of Rs. 572-4-0.

(2.) The plaintiff's case is that, himself and the defendants were lessees of Ac. 3-33 of dry land of Sri Chennakesavaswami and Ac. 4-80 of Sri Venugopalaswami Varu of Jagarlamudi. The plaintiff and the defendants sub-divided the land into five equal shares, the plaintiff enjoying 1 shares, the first defendant one share, the and defendant one share and the third defendant 1 shares. In the said proportion they were also liable to pay rent due to the temples. They owed the deity, Sri Chennakesavaswami Rs. 1,250 towards rent. The Executive Officer collected from the plaintiff Rs. 300 on gth September, 1955, Rs. 500 on 10th July, 1956 and Rs. 450 on 2nd July, 1957, evidenced by receipts. The payments by the plaintiff far exceeded his liability. The 2nd and 3rd defendants having compromised with the plaintiff, the suit was laid for contribution from the 1st defendant. The first defendant resisted the suit, contending inter alia that a sum of Rs. 250 was due to him towards his share of the profit in the tobacco crop raised by the plaintiff for the benefit of all the lessees, that the plaintiff himself recovered the rebate of 25 per cent, of the rent from the Executive Officer, and that the same benefit should also be given to him. It was further contended that the claim for Contribution in respect of the payment of Rs. 300 on 9th September, 1955 was time barred. An objection was also raised by the first defendant that the Small Cause Court had no jurisdiction to entertain the suit.

(3.) The learned Subordinate Judge upheld the plea of the defendant regarding limitation, and disallowed that part of the claim. The other contentions were however, rejected, and a decree was eventually granted in a sum of Rs. 214-15 nP. with proportionate costs. Sri Krishna Sarma, the learned Counsel for the petitioner, vehemently contended that the suit would not lie on the Small Cause side. He relied on Article 41 of "Schedule II of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act). Section 15 of the Act enacts :