ANANDA PRAKASH DEY Vs. LOKENDRANATH MAULIK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a revision application by the plaintiffs against an appellate order of the subordinate Judge. Baripada. One Kanakabala was the admitted owner of the disputed house. She had three sons Braja Gopal, Gosta Gopal and Nital Gopal. Braja Gopal died in 1965 and his widow is Manibala (plaintiff No. 3 ). Manibala's sons and daughters are plaintiffs 1. 2 and 4 to 8. Gosta Gopal is plaintiff No. 9, nitai Copal's wife was Ashalata and her two daughters are Sobha and Krishna. Braia Gopal died in the year 1965, Nitia in 1953 and Ashalata in 1962. The disputed house was let out to the defendant on a monthly rent of Rs. 30/- by gosta Gopal and Ashalata. The registered deed of lease is Ext. B. The plaintiffs filed M. S. No. 27 of 1967 against the defendant for recovery of arrears of rent alleged to be due from him from January 1965 to May 1967.

(2.) THE defendant pleaded that as Gosta Gopal and Ashalata had jointly let out the disputed house to him, he was paying rent to them jointly, that after Asha's death in 1962, he paid rent jointly to Gosta and Asha's daughter Sobha till December, 1964 and that from January, 1965 till the end of December. 1966 he paid the rent exclusively to Sobha. It may be stated, here that before M. S. 27 of 1967 was instituted, Braja Gopal's heirs had filed a suit T. S. 63 of 1965 for partition claiming a half share in the properties belonging to Kanakabala. According to them, Gosta gopal was entitled to the other half share and that Nitai Gopal's branch was not entitled to any share. We are not in this case concerned as to why Nitai Gopal's branch was denied any share in Kanakabala's properties. The fact, however, is that in December, 1966 that title suit was disposed of and the prayer of the plaintiffs in that suit was allowed. Obviously because Nitai Gopal's branch was not given any share in the suit house, the defendant with effect from January 1967 did not Pay rent due for the disputed house to anybody.

(3.) AFTER hearing the Parties, the learned Munsif who tried the suit arrived at the conclusion that from January, 1965 to December, 1966 the defendant in fact Paid the rent due for the disputed house to Sobha alone but according to him payment of rent to one of the co-landlords is sufficient discharge of the defendant's liability and that consequently he cannot be called upon to pay the rent over again to gosta Gopal. In view Of the admitted fact that no rent was paid from January. 1967 and as in view of the decision in T. S. 63 of 1965 Nitai Gopal's branch was not given a share in the disputed house, he passed a decree in favour of the plaintiffs only for Rs. 150/- being the arrears of rent due from January, 1967 to May, 1967. This decision was upheld in appeal by the learned Subordinate Judge.