LALITA PRASAD CHAUDHURI Vs. RAM NARAIN SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The second appeal is preferred by defendant 1. The suit out of which it arises was for a direction to him. to execute a kawala in respect of 2 annas in village Alisberpur in favour of the plaintiffs and for recovery of Rs. 56 as the price of paddy and rabi crops for 1335 and of Rs. 49 as arrears of rent with interest thereon, in pursuance of a registered contract of 30 August 1927. For the purpose of this appeal it is sufficient to state that the allegation was that the present appellant falsely set up an arrangement whereby half an anna was purchased by one Ramcharitar Lal and offered a conveyance of two annas only. The defence of the appellant was on the lines of the alleged arrangement and that he was not liable to damages as he had ceased to have any connexion and concern with Alisherpur after the contract: he did not appropriate the produce of the Alisherpur land or realise rent.

(2.) The present appellant was the only contesting defendant. The learned Subordinate Judge decreed the suit in respect of the kewala for 2 annas and disallowed the prayer for damages. As regards the latter he pointed out that there was absolutely no evidence to show that the appellant realised the said cash and produce rent and it was not said that any portion of the rent was time-barred on the date of the judgment, which was 22 August, 1929, and so the plaintiffs could not recover any damages. He added: "The learned pleader for the plaintiffs does not press for the damages claimed."

(3.) The appeal by the present appellant was dismissed by the learned District Judge who allowed a cross-appeal by the plaintiffs in respect of the sums of Rs. 56 and Rs. 49, which the trial Court had disallowed. The present second appeal is in respect of the damages allowed in cross-appeal and costs. So far as the damages are concerned, reliance is placed on the Privy Council decision in Venkata Narasimha Naidu V/s. Bhashyakarlu Naidu (1902) 25 Mad 367 in which it was said: It was one of the grounds of appeal to the High Court that the vakils exceeded their authority in giving up this issue, but the High Court held that a vakil's general powers in the Conduct of a suit include the abandonment of an issue which, in his discretion, he thinks it inadvisable to press; and in this opinion their Lordships concur.