RUPULAYYA Vs. ANNAJI RAO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These civil revision petitions are filed against the judgment and decree under the Small Causes Courts Act (1st Addl. District Munsif, Kakinada). The plaintiff is the same in both the suits, but the defendants are different as they are in possession of different holdings of agricultural land as lessees of the plaintiff. It is stated in the plaint that under the lease deed the defendant lessee should pay the taxes to the government but he committed default and hence S.C.No. 39 of 1970 was filed for recovery of the tax paid by the landlord in view of the default by the tenant. S.C.No. 40/79 was filed for recovery of similar amount of the tax paid by the landlord in view of the default of the tenant and also some balance of rent due from him. The defence in both the suits is a plea of discharge. But the court below overruled the defence and decreed the suit.

(2.) Shri. T. Bheemsen the learned counsel for the petitiones in both the civil revision petitions raised before me fof the first time the question of jurisdiction viz., that the suits for recovery of rent are not maintainable, in view of the excepted suits enumerated in Art. 8 in the Second Schedule to the Provincial Small causes Courts Act, 9 of 1837. Second Schedule reads thus;-

(3.) Hence the existence of such power of the Small Causes Courts so far as Andhra Area of our State is concerned cannot be doubted, and Art. 8 is not attracted.