SINTHAMANI CHETTI Vs. ARUNACHALAM CHETTIAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This case has been very fully and ably argued on both sides. The plaintiff took a sub-lease of some property from the lessees of the Sivaganga Zamindari and contracted to transfer it to defendant 2's father. As he refused to carry out the contract O. S. 195 of 1911 was filed for specific performance of the contract. It was decreed by the District Munsif, and on appeal the District Court confirmed the District Munsif's decree and the plaintiff, who was the defendant in that suit, preferred S. A. No. 248 of 1916 which was dismissed by a Bench of the High Court; thereupon the plaintiff executed Exhibit-B in accordance with the decree of the High Court in second appeal. He now sues the defendants for recovery of rents and charges paid by him during the pendency of the suit for specific performance. The Subordinate Judge dismissed the plaintiff's suit and the District Judge of Ramnad has given him a decree for Rs. 2,644-5-7. Defendants 3 and 4 and the legal representatives of defendant 5 have preferred this second appeal. Two contentions are raised by Mr. Varadachariar for the appellant. (1) The liability of the defendants to pay rent and charges in respect of the property which is the subject of the sublease arose only on the date of Exhibit B and they are not liable to pay rent and charges which accrued due before that date and the plaintiff has no cause of action against the defendants in respect of them. (2) The cause of action, if any, is barred by limitation as the suit was filed more than three years after the date of the payments made by the plaintiff.

(2.) A few facts are necessary to understand the contentions. The sub-lease in favour of the plaintiff was on 27 April 1908. The contract to transfer the sublease in favour of the defendant 2's father was on 10 September 1908. The suit for specific performance O. S. 195 of 1911, was filed on 2 May, 1911 and the District Munsif's decree was passed on 31st March 1914. The decree of the High Court in S. A. 248 of 1916 was on 8 March 1917. Exhibit, B the transfer-deed by the plaintiff in favour of the defendants according to the decree of the High Court, was executed on 19 June 1917. The present suit was filed on 11th November 1917. The payments by the plaintiff in respect of the lease-hold property were between 1909 and 1915. It is admitted that if the three years rule were held applicable to the present suit all but Rs. 200 odd would be barred by limitation.

(3.) Taking the first point first: The seller is bound to pay all public charges and rents accrued due in respect of the property up to the date of the sale and the liability of the vendee to pay them arises only on the date of the sale: vide Section 55, Cluses (1) (g) and (5) (d) of the Transfer of Property Act. In the absence of a contract to the contrary the liability of a vendee of property or the transferee of a lease to pay rents and charges arises only on the date of sale or transfer of the lease. There is no distinction between the sale of immovable property and the transfer of a lease in this respect. This contention is sought to be met by the argument that the defendant's title related back to the date of the contract for transfer of the sublease. It is difficult to follow the argument of Mr. Rajah Aiyar that the title of the defendants should be held to relate back to the date of the contract to transfer. The title passes in the case of a sale on the date of the execution of the sale-deed and in the case of a lease on the date of the execution of the transfer- deed. Though a sale-deed is registered some time after its execution it takes effect from the date of the execution and not from the date of registration. This is specifically provided for in the Registration Act. The title of the defendants cannot on any principle of law be held to relate back to the date of the contract for the transfer of the sub-lease and the terms of Ex. B do not warrant such a contention. Under Ex. B the right of the plaintiff, as it was on the date of the sub-lease, was transferred to the defendants. The defendants have only acquired the right of the plaintiff under the sub-lease as it was on the day the sub-lease was executed and not as it was on the date of the contract of sale or at any other time. This does not mean that the defendants title to the lease should be taken to relate back to the date of the contract of sale. The sublease and the contract to transfer it were on different dates, and if the contention of the respondent is tenable the question would arise whether the title of the defendants related back to the date of the sub- lease or the date of the contract to transfer it. The only answer to this contention is that the title of the defendants commenced only from the date of Ex. B.