RAJAH KAVALI ARUNACHELLA ROW BAHADUR; GOPI SETTI NARAYANASWAMI NAIDU GARU Vs. RAJAH RANGIAH APPA ROW BAHADUR; RAJAH KAVALI ARUNACHELLA ROW BAHADUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The questions for decision in these two appeals are whether, as contended by the appellant in Appeal No. 23 of 1903, the suit is premature, and, whether, if that is not the case, the suit in respect of the amount claimed as having been paid by the plaintiff respondent - on account of peshkush for faslis 1303 and 1304, is, as held by the District Judge, time barred.

(2.) The facts are shortly these. The village of Repudi, which formed part of the Zamindarni of Reddigudem, was conveyed on the 24 March 1893 by the plaintiff and his deceased brother to the late Papamma Rao, Zamindarni of Nidadavolu, for the sum of Rs. 40,000. A duly registered conveyance was executed and delivered by the vendors to the vendee, and possession of the property was given to her. The village has ever since remained in the hands of the vendee or her representatives, the income thereof being received by them. The price was not paid to the vendors but was retained by the vendee in order that the debts payable by the vendors, and mentioned in the conveyance, might be liquidated therefrom by her, and the balance, if any, paid to the vendors. When the conveyance was executed, the vendors and the vendee applied to the Collector of the district that the village be sub-divided and registered in the name of the vendee and that the proportionate peshkush payable in respect of it be ascertained and assessed. In the instrument of conveyance the vendors entered into a covenant to do at the request of the vendee any further acts that might be necessary in respect of the subdivision, registration and separate assessment of the village. With reference to the communications made to the collector by the vendors and the vendee as aforesaid, the Collector, on the 20 April 1893, informed Papamma Rao that as the village was registered in the names not only of the vendors but of one, Chendramowli Rao also, her request for sub- division, etc, would not be granted unless "a duly authenticated document bestowing on the two proprietors above named the power of disposing the property of Chendramowli Rao also is produced." This was made known to one Lingiah, now deceased, a pleader who had taken part in bringing about the purchase, and who was a lessee under the plaintiff. Lingiah was asked to obtain certain information from the plaintiff with reference to the point raised by the collector. There is no direct evidence that Lingiah called upon the plaintiff to furnish the information wanted, but there can be no doubt that the fact that the Collector was raising objections to the sub-division, etc., must have been brought to the notice of the plaintiff in the course of what subsequently took place. For exhibit B, a settlement of account which took place in June 1898 between the agents of the plaintiff on the one hand, and the agent of Papamma Rao, on the other (proved to have been authorised by the respective principals to make a settlement), refers to correspondence between the plaintiff and Lingiah in regard to the adjustment of the accounts connected with the purchase money left with the vendee, and it is expressly recorded therein that the settlement is made conditional, among other things, upon the plaintiff procuring the subdivision and the registry of the property in the name of Papamma Rao, and this condition as to the subdivision and registry implies, we think, that the plaintiff was aware why the subdivision and registry had not been effected Papamma Rao and, after her death, her representatives, abstained from paying any amount towards the publio revenue due in respect of the village, and the plaintiff has had to pay the Government demand on the whole zemindari, including the proportionate share that would have been payable by the defendant on account of Repudi if it had been sub-divided and separately registered, as intended by the parties.

(3.) Such being the facts, the contention of Mr. Sundara Aiyar for the defendants appellants in Appeal No. 23 - was that, under the terms of the conveyance, the plaintiff is not entitled to make any claim with reference to the payments made by him unless and until the exact amount payable in respect of the village has been fixed by the revenue authorities.