NARRA RAMA SESHAIAH Vs. SOMESWARA SWAMI VARI DEVASTHANAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Tais is a revision petition under section 25 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act (hereinafter called the Act) by the 1st defendant in Small Cause Suit No. 60 of 1969 on the file of the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Vijayawada.

(2.) The respondent-plaintiff filed a suit for recovery of a sum of Rs. 1,204 plus interest of Rs. 396 ; in all for recovery of Rs.1,60o from the 1st defendant alleging that the 1st defendant Was a tenant and that the maktha Was in arrears in respect of Fasli 1372 as per accounts maintained. Ther cause of action for the suit was mentioned to have arisen on 11 th November, 1962 When the lease deed was executed and on various other dates when the payment of maktha became due i.e., on the 15h of January of every year. The suit was filed on 15th January, 1969. The claim therefore in the suit was for recovery of the value of the maktha of 56 bags of paddy and the interest thereon in respect of the arrears of rent due for Fasli 1372. The suit was filed more than seven years after the default was committed by the tenant. An objection was raised by the office inter alia requiring the plaintiff to show how it was in time and the plaint was returned on 17th January, 1969. It Was represented on 24th January, 1969 merely stating: "complied with and represented". Tne suit was numbered.

(3.) In the written statement the 1st defendant contended that he was paying the maktha due to the second defendant on behalf of the plaintiff temple and was obtaining receipts and that it was false to state that the 1st defendant was in arrears of the maktha for Falsi 1372. In effect the plea was one of discharge of the obligation by payment. No objection that the suit was barred by limitations was raised in the written statement. The trial Court did not accept the contention of the 1st defendant and held that he was liable for the value of 56 bags of maktha due for Fasli 1372 which had to be paid by 15th January, 1963. The result was that the suit Was decreed with costs against the 1st defendant. The suit as against the 2nd defendant was dismissed without costs.