VELUCHOORI PARASANNA Vs. VELUCHURI SOMU NAIDU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE 2nd defendant and one Achaya were joint tenants of the plaintiff of certain lands. Achaya executed a document by which he purported to relinquish the lands in question to the plaintiff. THE plaintiff sued to recover possession of the lauds. THE Munsif held that the relinquishment did not bind the 2nd defendant and dismissed the suit.

(2.) THE Subordinate Judge held that the relinquishment was effective as regards Achaya s interest and gave the plaintiff a decree for a moiety of the lands. THE plaintiff has not appealed, and consequently we have not to consider the question, whether the effect of the relinquishment by Achaya puts an end to the tenancy of both joint tenants, See Sri Raja Simhadri Appa Rao v. Prattipati Ramayya 29 M. 29. THE appellant asks us to restore the decree of the Munsif and dismiss the suit altogether, and referred us to Mohima Chunder Sein v. Pitambar Shaha 9 W.R. 147. We are not prepared to do this. It seems to us that, assuming the 2nd defendant can say that the relation of landlord and tenant continued between him and the plaintiff after the relinquishment by Achaya, the 2nd defendant s interest in the demised premises did not extend to more than a moiety. This second appeal is dismissed with costs.