K RAJAIAH Vs. B GAJANAND RAO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a petition under Order 47, rule 1 and section 114, Civil Procedure Code to review the judgment in S.A. No. 322 of 1962 allowed by my judgment dated 1st March, 1966. I allowed the Second Appeal and dismissed the plaintiff's suit. The plaintiff has now filed the petition for review. The suit was filed by the plaintiff for two reliefs, one for the recovery of Rs. 50 being the expenses alleged to have been incurred by the plaintiff for keeping the furniture of the defendant for the period between 12th November, 1958 to 12th December, 1958 and secondly for the return of the rent-deed dated 18th December, 1957 to the plaintiff. The suit was filed in the Court of the Third Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad and that Court framed seven issues one of which, viz., the second issue, was subsequently deleted. For the purpose of this review petition it is necessary to refer only to the 5th issue which is as follows :- "Whether the defendant is entitled to the possession of mulgi in addition to the furniture." "This issue was framed by the trial Court apparently because it was the plaintiff's case that what was leased to him was only the furniture which was in the mulgi which belongs to himself and not to the defendant, whereas it was the defendant's case that he was the owner of both the mulgi and furniture and that he leased them both by the rent-deed dated 18th December, 1957. The rent-deed has been marked as Exhibit B-1 in the case. On this issue the trial Court found that the defendant was not entitled to the possession of the mulgi and that he was entitled only to the possession of furniture, as the lease did not comprise the mulgi at all.

(2.) On a consideration of the evidence in the case the trial Court dismissed the plaintiff's suit with regard to the amount of Rs. 50 but decreed the return of the rent-deed on the ground that the period for which it was executed by the plaintiff in favour of the defendant expired. Against that judgment there were two appeals before the Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad at Secunderabad. In those appeals the decree was confirmed. The defendant filed a second appeal against that part of the trial Court decree, i.e., the return of the rent-deed to the plaintiff. By my judgment in the second appeal, I set aside that part of the decree of the trial Court which was confirmed by the Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad at Secunderabad, and dismissed the suit in its entirety.

(3.) What exactly happened during the hearing of the second appeal and on what lines arguments proceeded at the time can be inferred only from a perusal of my judgment, because the Counsel who appeared in the second appeal are not appearing in this review petition either for the petitioner or the respondent. From a perusal of my judgment, I find that I construed Exhibit B-1 and held that in that document both the mulgi and furniture were leased out by the defendant to the plaintiff and that since the period of lease was over the defendant would be entitled to possession of both. In my judgment the defendant also was referred to as " owner " . But that was merely the expression that was used in the rent- deed. If the judgment is read as a whole it will be clear that the expression "owner" was not used by me in the sense that the defendant was the absolute owner of the mulgi, because in the beginning of the judgment itself I pointed out that one Govar- dhandas Khushaldas was the owner of the mulgi and the plaintiff was a lessee.