RAJAH OF VIZAYANAGARAM, REPRESENTED BY HIS MUKYAR G APPAYYA PANTULU GARU Vs. POOSAPATI APPALA NARASIMHA RAJU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The case is one of first impression, but as it has been fully argued, I do not think it necessary to reserve judgment. The facts found are that the property in dispute was attached as belonging to the holding of defendants Nos. 2 and 3, who had committed default in the payment of rent. The plaintiff claimed the property as his own and contended that, as no arrears were due from him, the property should not be sold.

(2.) Notwithstanding the objection, the property was about to be sold, when the plaintiff paid the arrears claimed to be due under protest. In this suit, he sues for the money which he was thus compelled to pay. The landlord is the first defendant and defendants Nos. 2 and 3 are the tenants who claimed the property against the plaintiff.

(3.) The defences were that the land sought to be sold really belonged to defendants Nos. 2 and 3 and that the Civil Courts have no jurisdiction to entertain the suit. The Courts below held that the land belonged to the plaintiff and that the Civil Courts have jurisdiction.