RAJAH SAHEB MAHABHAN DOOSTAN SRI RAJAH RAO VENKATA KUMAR MAHIPATI SURYA RAO, BAHADUR GARU, RAJAH OF PITTAPURAM Vs. AVALA GOVINDAYYA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiff sues to recover the kattubadi on three items of land with separate survey numbers, separate pattas, separate extents and separate kattubadis (see schedule to the plaint.)

(2.) The Defendants Nos. 1 to 6 are said to be connected with Items Nos. 1 and 2 and Defendants Nos. 8 and 9 are, it is how conceded for the plaintiff, the purchasers of item No. 3. Therefore they are certainly liable to pay the kattubadi of this item separately i. e., Re. 1-11- 3. Now the plaintiff admits in the plaint schedule that he recovered Re. 1-11-2 (in two parts of Re. 0-13-7 each) for the properties sued for and gives credit for the payments though he did not allege who paid it. The Defendants Nos. 8 and 9 said that it is they that paid it and produce their receipts. I asked the plaintiff to state on affidavit who paid it. He now admits that Defendants Nos. 8 and 9 paid it. Thus the Defendants Nos. 8 and 9 have completely paid off the kattubadi fixed on their items except a pie for each fasli. If the claim for this pie was proved in the Court below, there would have been a decree against them for that amount. But this was overlooked and the Civil Revision Petition is filed for setting a joint and several decree against Defendants Nos. 8 and 9 along with Defendants Nos. 1 and 6 of the kattubadi of other items and the claim is sought to be substantiated by adding a new plea in the affidavit (now filed in response to my demand for information as to who paid Rs. 1-11-3), that the kattubadis, though originally fixed separately were-afterwards consolidated by an arrangement, a case not set up in the original plaint.

(3.) Both on the ground that the kattubadis were fixed separately for the three items (according to the plaint schedule) and on the ground that the Defendants Nos. 8 and 9 are only liable for the kattubadi of item 3, by privity of possession (there being no privity of contract) see Venkatusubramaniyam V/s. Rajah of Venkatagiri [1920] 11 L.W. 523. I dismiss the claim of the petitioner against the Defendants Nos. 8 and 9 as to Items Nos. 1 and 2 and: give a decree for 4 pies as to Item3. As the petition is frivolous it is, dismissed with costs subject to the above modification.