DORAISAMI REDDI Vs. CVENKATACHALAM PILLAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These second appeals are from suits for arrears of rent by the Shrotriemdar the plaintiff against his tenants for 8 Faslis (Fasli 1312 to Fasli 1319). The main defence is that the claim up to Fasli 1316 is barred by limitation. As regards Fasli 1317, the plea is that as the arrears were due in February it was not open to the plaintiff to stipulate in the patta that they shall be paid at the end of April and as the suit was brought on the 1st of May 1911 the claim for that. Fasli also is barred by limitation. There is a further defence applicable to all the Faslis that the plaintiff agreed to forego his claim for water cess in case the Government collected it from the defendant; and as the defendant paid it to Government, he is not liable to pay it over again to the plaintiff.

(2.) The plaintiff in answer to the plea of limitation sets up two answers : (1) There were proceedings to ascertain the arrears of rent which terminated only in April 1910, and that those proceedings saved the bar : (2) that the plaintiff was prevented by injunction from collecting the rent; and if the time during which the injunction was in force were excluded the plaintiffs suit will be in time. In order to understand these arguments, the history of the previous litigation has to be shortly stated.

(3.) The defendant, the tenant instituted an interpleader suit (O.S. No. 38 of 1904 in the District Munsif s Court of Panruti) to which he made the plaintiff and the Government parties, for determining which of them was entitled to collect the water cess from him. He also prayed for an injunction restraining the plaintiff from collecting it from him till the rights of the rival claimants were settled. The District Munsif held that the Government alone was entitled to collect the cess and restrained the plaintiff by injunction from collecting it. This was on the 5th May 1906. On appeal Mr. Hamnett the District Judge held that the suit was bad for misjoinder of parties and of causes of action and dismissed the suit on the 3rd Nov. 1906. On the 22nd October 1909, the High Court in Second Appeal Reversed this decision and remanded the suit for disposal on the merits. After remand, Mr. Moberly the then District Judge held that both the Government and the plaintiff were entitled to collect the cess. This was on the 4th April 1910. Finally, the High Court held on the 18th October 1912, that the plaintiff alone was entitled to collect it. It may be mentioned in passing that the plaintiff instituted the suit on the 1st May 1911 on the strength of the judgment of the District Judge on remand.