LAWS(PVC)-1923-11-97

ABDUL GAFUR Vs. ALI MIAH, SUB-REGISTRAR

Decided On November 27, 1923
ABDUL GAFUR Appellant
V/S
ALI MIAH, SUB-REGISTRAR Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal by the added defendants in a suit for arrears of rent.

(2.) The plaintiff instituted the suit on the 16 April, 1919, against the tenant-defendant for recovery of rent for the period between the 18 October, 1916, and the 13 April, 1919. His allegation was that the tenant held under him an area of one kani seven gandas of land at an annual rent of Rs. 43-11.6. The defendant filed his written statement on the 17 July, 1919, and urged, amongst; other pleas, that the plaintiff alone was not competent to maintain the suit as he was in effect a fractional landlord. The Court thereupon adjourned the case till the 7 August, 1919. On the date, the plaintiff applied for time to add certain persons as defendants. The adjournment was granted, and on the 28 October, 1919, at the instance of the plaintiff, the present appellants were added as defendants. The plaint, however, was not amended as contemplated by Order 1, Rule 10, Sub-rule (4) of the Civil P. C., and as it now stands it does not disclose a cause of action against the added defendants. Notice was served upon the added defendants who entered appearance, and on the 16th January, 1920 filed their written statement. They denied that the plaintiff had any cause of action against them for the arrears claimed, and asserted that they were his co-sharers. They further repudiated the transaction which, it was alleged, had taken place between the plaintiff and their predecessor-in-interest. On these pleadings, no issues were framed. The Court proceeded to try the suit as between the plaintiff on the one hand and the defendants on the other, and, on the 23 February, 1920, pronounced judgment in favour of the plaintiff to the extent of one-half of the claim.

(3.) The trial Court came to the conclusion that the plaintiff had established his title only to a half share of the property in dispute and that the other half share was held by the added defendants who were described as pro forma defendants, that is, defendants against whom no relief was claimed. The plaintiff was dissatisfied with this decision and appealed to the Subordinate Judge.