SHANKARLAL Vs. CHIMANLAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is appeal by the defendants from the judgment and decree 19 -1 -1963 of the District Judge, Udaipur, arising out of a suit for recovery of Rs. 16828/ -.

(2.) SHORTLY stated the case of the plaintiffs in the court below was that on 1st May, 1948, they took a If also of a Cinema house known as Summer Tallies situated at Kishargarh from Maharaja Sumersingh of Kishangarh for a period of five years on a monthly rent of Rs. 2500/ - On 6th August, 1948, it was orally agreed between the plaintiffs and the defendants at Udaipur that the said Cinema house be sublet to the defendants on the same terms and conditions en which they bed taken it from Maharaja of Kishangarh. On 7th August, 1848, in pursuance of the said oral agreement possession over the Cinema house was delivered to the defendants and they also executed an agreement en 10th August, 1948, at Kishengarh by which they undertook to pay the monthly rent of Rs. 2600/ - directly to Maharaja of Kishangarh, and in case they committed default of any of the conditions of the sub -lease, they would be responsible for the damages sustained by the plaintiffs. The defandents continued in possession of the cinema reuse upto 16th April, 1949, when it was closed because of a fire having broken cut in it. The defendants, however, did rot pay rent to the Maharaja Kishengarh from 1 -11 -48 to 16 -4 -49 as a result of which Maharaja Kishengarh instituted the suit for recovery of arrears of rent amounting to Rs. 13833/5/3 against the plaintiffs as well as the defendants. The above suit was decreed only against the plaintiffs but was dismissed against the defendants because it was held that there was no privity of contract between the Maharaja of Kishengarh and the defendants. Maharaja of Kissinger in execution of the decree recovered from the plaintiffs Rs. 7000/ - on 26th April, 1968, Rs. 4000/ - on 3rd July, 1959, and Rs. 2690/ - on 8th September, 1960 The plaintiffs, therefore, claimed that they were entitled to recover the above am from the defendants together with interest amounting to Rs. 1739/ - and other expenses which they had to incur in the litigation with Maharaja of Kishengarh on the ground that the defendants had committed a breach of the terms of the agreement, and that trey were liable to indemnify the plaintiffs on that account.

(3.) ON the above pleadings, the lower court framed the following issues: .........[vernacular ommited text]...........