CHEGONDI VENKATARAMA DAS Vs. BONAM LATCHANNA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is against a judgment of the Subordinate Judge of Narasapur decreeing the suit of the plaintiffs and awarding them damages of Rs. 8,900, and, after giving credit for Rs. 3,613 towards the sale of tobacco and chillies, passing a decree for Rs. 5,287.

(2.) THE suit arose in the following circumstances. It appears that the plaintiffs -respondents who are brothers were the tenants of one Chituuri Ramanna who had taken on lease Puligeda Lanka and Nadimi Lanka from the appellant -2nd defendant, who was the Head Village Munsif of Doddipatla village. The respondents alleged that they had raised tobacco and chillies under the lease commencing from 26 -8 -1951 and gathered and stored the crops in the sheds in Puligedda lanka for curing the tobacco, under licence No. 154/52, dated 30 -1 -1952, which was granted to the 1st respondent by the Excise Department. In this case, whatever may be the allegations in the plaint and the averments in the written statement and the issues, it is not disputed before me that these two lankas were leased by Chitturi Ramanna to respondents 1 to 3 and that the excise licence was in the mime of the 1st respondent and that these respondents had raised tobacco and chillies crop and had cut them and kept them in barns for curing. What is disputed is the value of the tobacco which has been fixed by the Subordinate Judge at Rs. 8,000 and the right of the Government to attach the crop. The claim of respondents 1 to 3 was for damages against both the Government (4th respondent) as well as the appellant for having attached and brought to sale the tobacco and chillies belonging to them with the connivance of the appellant, who was actuated by ill -will and malice against them, and without any just claim or cause. The appellant, it is alleged, being a rich and influential man, managed to effect wrongful seizure with the unlawful assistance of a Police Constable No. 1034 and a Revenue Inspector of Doddipatla Firka, Sri Penugonda Suryanarayanamurthy, without serving any written notice on them and when there was nothing due from them, nor were they liable for this amount. It was also averred that the village of Doddipatla and its hamlets have got two village Munsifs. While the appellant was in charge of the work relating to Doddipatla village proper, the other village Munsif was in charge of Puligedda lanka, etc. But, in this case, the appellant with sheer malice went out of his way and concerned himself unnecessarily in effecting the wrongful seizure of the stock of tobacco and chillies which were stored in Puligedda lanka, hamlet of Doddipatla, over which e had no jurisdiction. Respondents 1 to 3 stated that the tobacco and chillies seized by the appellant belonged to them absolutely and were not at all liable to be seized for any arrears of revenue of Chitturi, Ramanna who was only entitled to claim the rent due under the lease. It appears that Ramanna obtained a decree in O. S. No. 26 of 1952 on the file of the District Munsifs Court, Narsapur for a part of the rent under the lease and received almost the rest of the rent due also from the plaintiffs even before 28 -4 -1952, and as such, even Ramanna had practically no claim against the respondents in respect of their lease for any rent due under it. The appellant filed a petition to implead the plaintiffs as lessees of Ramanna for Puligedda lanka lands in O. S. No. 224 of 1951 on the file of the District Munsifs Court, Narasapur which was filed by the appellant against Ramanna inasmuch as he had a claim against Ramanna for the rents from these lands. In order to coerce the respondents by illegal action and somehow collect some amount wrongfully from them, the appellant got the Tahsildar to issue an attachment order under the Revenue Recovery Act, and in fact, under the threat of attachment and of obstructing the respondents from removing the tobacco stocks from the pit when it was in the process of curing, he collected Rs. 1,200 from the three respondents on 3 -4 -1952. Further, he detained the stock illegally in the village chavadi of Doddipatla quite recklessly without any regard to its safety or proper flooring or ventilation and thus caused deterioration in the value of the tobacco as a consequence of which it was sold only for Rs. 3,613 when its value was nearly Rs. 10,000. The Government, it was alleged, was quite negligent and failed in its duty to see that the stock of tobacco must be carefully preserved from deterioration and damage in a fit and proper place when it was in the custody of its subordinate officers. As such, both the 4th respondent and the appellant were jointly and severally liable for the full value of the tobacco and chillies seized by the appellant, and consequently, the respondents issued a notice under S. 80, C.P.C. to both the defendants on 20 -10 -1952. After this notice, the 1st defendant's officers sold the stock as late as on 15 -12 -1952 to avoid total loss and in the auction no genuine bidder was prepared to bid as the stock was too much damaged and hence the appellant himself through some of his underlings managed a show of small competition and purchased the said stock himself in the names of Adabala Nambellaswamy and Gidigi Suranna for Rs. 3,535 and he bought the chillies for Rs. 75.

(3.) THE appellant, in his written statement, stated that he was not aware that the plaintiffs took on lease about 18 acres of lanka land from late Chitturi Ramanna, that they raised tobacco and other crops in them and that they obtained a licence for curing tobacco and that the tobacco was worth Rs. 10,000. The chillies were worth only Rs. 75 or Rs. 78. It was also stated that there was no acquaintance between the appellant and the plaintiffs previously, that Chitturi Kamanna owned certain amounts to the Government as arrears of revenue on the lanka lands belonging to the revenue village of Doddipatla, which, he had taken on lease from the Government, that the revenue authorities issued orders directing that the crops raised by Ramanna in the lanka lands should be attached and that the proceeds realised by the sale be credited to Government towards arrears of revenue due from Ramanna. Accordingly, the appellant, along with the then Revenue Inspector of Doddipatla, attached the crops that were raised on the lanka lands by Ramanna and the stock was kepi in safe custody. He also denied knowledge of the decree obtained by Ramanna in O. S. No. 26 of 1952 on the file of the District Munsif's Court, Narasapur against the plaintiffs and about the financial matters as between Ramanna and the plaintiffs. Under the terms of the auction of leasehold rights of the lanka lands, the lessee is forbidden from sub -leasing the lands, and so Chitturi Ramanna was not entitled to sub -lease the lands to the plaintiffs. The sub -lease is not valid in law and completely void and was not binding either on the Government or on third parties. As such, the respondents cannot in law enforce the rights said to have accrued to them under the sub -lease and the respondents have no cause of action against the defendants and much less against him personally. It was also denied that he acted illegally or wrongfully or in misuse of the powers. The suit was not maintainable and was liable to be dismissed.