LAWS(PAT)-1972-9-10

KASHINATH PRASAD Vs. DHARAMNATH

Decided On September 06, 1972
KASHINATH PRASAD Appellant
V/S
DHARAMNATH Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioners before me are the plaintiffs of a Small Cause Court suit which had been instituted by their father Shri Ram Briksh Prasad for recovery of arrears of rent in respect of a gola situated over 1 katha 4 dhurs of land appertaining to plot Nos. 218 and 218/596 in village Raipatti. THE original plaintiff Ram Briksh Prasad died on the 8th November, 1968 whereupon the present petitioners who are his sons, were substituted in his place within the period of limitation. Subsequently it transpired that Ram Briksh Prasad had also left behind a married daughter but she had not been impleaded as a party in the suit. A question, accordingly, arose in the trial Court as to whether the suit was maintainable at the instance of only the sons of Ram Briksh Prasad. THE learned small Cause Court Judge has non-suited the petitioners substantially on two grounds. He has held in the first instance that the petitioners are not entitled to any decree in the suit since they have not obtained a succession certificate consequent upon the death of their father Ram Briksh Prasad. Secondly, the learned Judge has held that the suit can no longer proceed in absence of the married daughter of Ram Briksh Prasad inasmuch as the suit to that extent has abated,

(2.) IT is not necessary to mention any other plea or pleas taken on behalf of the defendants inasmuch as they have all been negatived by the learned Small Cause Court Judge. So the only question which I have to decide in this application in revision is whether the learned Small Cause Court Judge is right in dismissing the suit on the two grounds mentioned above,

(3.) UPON the view which I have expressed above it is necessary to determine as to what extent the claim laid in the suit is fit to be decreed upon the present state of record. The total claim laid in the suit was for Rs. 529.55 which included some amount by way of interest over the sum of Rs. 481/- which was the amount of rent due from the defendants for nearly a period of 14 months that is to say from the 1st November, 1966 to the 21st December. 1967. Quite clearly the plaintiffs are not entitled to recover anything by way of interest over the outstanding arrears of rent. Therefore, out of the sum of Rs. 481/- which was sought to be recovered as the outstanding rent for the premises in question the proportionate l/5th share of Ram Briksha Prasad came to Rs. 96.20. It is only with, respect to this sum of Rs. 96.20 that in view of the proviso of Section 6 the difficulty arising from the omission to obtain the succession certificate could arise. Therefore, only that extent of the rent claimed cannot be granted to the petitioners for the reasons given above. But so far as the remaining amount of Rs. 384.80 is concerned I find absolutely no justification for declining to decree the suit in favour of the petitioners.