ADAPA KATAMASWAMY Vs. PULAPAKA RAYYA PANTULU AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is filed as against the of the Subordinate Judge of Kakinada, remanding the suit to the District Munsif's Court, Peddapuram, and directing the District Munsif to try issues 3 to 7. The main contention of Sri N. Bapiraju, the learned Advocate for the appellant, is that as the plaintiff -respondent has failed to make out that the defendant is his tenant and that the 2nd defendant's a sub -tenant, the appeal ought to have been dismissed and that no opportunity ought to have given to the plaintiff to make out his title to property.

(2.) ON the question as to whether the title of the plaintiff might be gone into or not when he fails to establish the relationship of landlord and the tenant, are three Bench decisions of the Madras High In the earliest decision in Balasidhantam v. Perumal Chetti,, 27 Mad LJ 475 : (AIR 1915 Mad (A), the learned Judges held that if the suit was brought under S. 7, CI. XI (cc) of the Court Fees Act, the title of the plaintiffs need not be gone into. They held that it was not open to the Court in appropriate cases to go into the question of title. The head note is however wrongly worded, and it says that the cannot go into title and give a decree on that The next Bench decision of the Madras High is that reported in Chennavaraswamy v. Chinna narayana Murthy,, 21 Ind Cas 560 (B). On the facts of particular case, the learned Judge held (sic) the learned Judges held that as satisfactory reasons for refusing to go into the question of title, they were not prepared to interfere with his discretion. The last Bench decision to be referred to is the decision in Ponnia Pillai v. Sivanu Pandia Thevar,, ILR 1947 Mad 671 : ( : AIR 1947 Mad 282) (C). Wadsworth, Officiating Chief Justice, delivering the judgment of the Bench, followed the Full Bench decision of the Allahabad High Court in Balmukund v. Dalu,, ILR 25 All 498 (FB) (D), holding that even if the suit based on the relationship of landlord and tenant failed, a decree might be based on the plaintiff's title.

(3.) THE next question that has to be decided in this case is as to whether the Subordinate Judge exercised his discretion rightly in directing the District Munsif to decide that question of title. Though the suit was based on the relationship of landlord and tenant, the question of title was put in issue and evidence was adduced by both the parties on that question. In the circumstances, the Subordinate Judge acted rightly in directing Issues 3 to 7 to be determined by him. Sri Bapiraju, the learned Advocate for the appellant, pointed out that the additional issue will also have to be determined by him. I agree with his contention and direct that all issues other than issues 1 and 2 might be determined by the District Munsif. I confirm the order of remand and dismiss the appeal with costs.