MALINENI MALLAYYA Vs. SOMPALLI KONDAPPA NAIDU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a defendants' appeal against the decree and judgment of the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Nellore, in O.S. No. 154 of 1948 a suit filed by the respondent for recovery of a sum of Rs. 6,200-13-0 with interest at 6 per cent, per annum.

(2.) The undisputed facts may be briefly stated. One Venkataramanayya was the proprietor of Jammavaram village. He executed a usufructuary mortgage of the said village in favour of the plaintiff and the 2nd defendant. On 15th March, 1943, the 2nd defendant, sold his half interest in the mortgage to the plaintiff for consideration. Thereafter, the plaintiff leased the village to the defendants for a period of 6 years, from Fasli 1352 to Fasli 1357 at a rent of Rs. 850 payable at the end of every Fasli. The 1st defendant is the father-in-law of the 2nd defendant. The defendants surrendered possession of the suit property to the plaintiff in 1948. The said village had been taken over by the Government under Madras Estates (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act by notification dated 7th September, 1950. Alleging that the defendants did not pay the rents stipulated in the lease deed, the aforesaid suit was filed for recovery of the rent due to him.

(3.) The defendants, inter alia, pleaded that the rent for Fasli 1359 was received by the plaintiff in advance on the date of the transfer deed by adjusting Rs. 850, out of the consideration payable to the plaintiff. They also alleged that the plaintiff did not pay Rs.3,000 under the transfer deed but stood havaltha to third parties to whom the first defendant was indebted. They further averred that, with the permission and approval of the proprietor of the village, a sum of Rs. 150 was spent in 1943 for constructing anas and channels to divert water, that in 1945-46 another sum of Rs. 2,347-6-0 was spent by them for repairs to the tank and that, under the terms of the lease deed, the said amounts should be given credit to by the plaintiff towards the rents due under the lease. It was further pleaded that because of the Madras Estates (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, it became impossible to perform the terms of the lease deed, and therefore, the suit was not maintainable.