RAMACHANDRA MURTHY Y Vs. NAVEEN KUMAR SARAIYA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The second defendant in the suit is the appellant. The first respondent- plaintiff filed the suit against the appellant and the second respondent for recovery of a sum of Rs.20,000/- representing arrears of rent due to him from 1-4-1984 to 31-1-1985 and also for a direction to the second respondent to pay his share of rent of Rs.2,000/- regularly. The case of the first respondent-plaintiff is that he had purchased Plot No.19 admeasuring 395-75 Sq. yards through a registered sale deed dated March 14,1978; while the appellant purchased Plot No.l9-B, admeasuring 395-00 Sq, yards under a registered sale deed on the same day. Subsequently, both the first respondent and the appellant have constructed a building on the said plots jointly. The said premises was leased out to the second respondent on a monthly rent of Rs.4,000/- under a lease deed dated 1-11-1982. The appellant was collecting the rents and he gave the account of rents up to the end of March, 1984. From 1-4-1984 to 31-1-1985, the appellant did not render any account having received the rents from the tenant. In spite of giving notice, neither the first defendant nor me second defendant paid the amount due to the plaintiff. Hence the suit.

(2.) The second respondent who is the first defendant in the suit remained exparte. The appellant who is the second defendant filed his written statement. The appellant contended that a composite plan was submitted to the Municipality for construction of a building. After obtaining sanction, the plaintiff had expressed his inability to finance the construction, but expressed his desire to sell the same to the second defendant at the market rate. The appellant expressed his desire to construct the entire building and enjoy the same subject to payment of cost of the share of the plaintiff to him.

(3.) The plaintiff was examined as P.W.I and the appellant was examined as D.W.I. The trial Court dismissed the suit holding that the suit is not maintainable for mere recovery of rent without seeking for a declaration of title. As the value of the building in question is more than Rs.4,00,000/-, the trial Court has no pecuniary jurisdiction over the plaint schedule property. The plaintiff preferred an appeal before the Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad and the said appeal was allowed on 26-10-1992 holding that the plaintiff is entitled to claim his share of rent and he need not file any suit for declaration of his title. The appellate Court has framed the following points: