Rama Shankar Singh & Anr. versus Mst. Shyamlata Devi and Ors.

¶1

A RAMA SHANKAR SINGH & ANR.

¶2

v.

¶3

MST. SHYAMLATA DEVI AND ORS.

¶4

•• ~ "/ '-.

¶5

..

¶6

_October_10,1968 [S.M.S!KR!ANDKS.BACHAWAT,JJ.]	B	•
Indian ContmctAc.t(9._of_1872),s.43-Liability to pay rent- lfjoint.		-·
_Bihar Tenancy Act,ss.67(1),184_and193-Limitation-Pieanot *takeninwritten statement-Arrears ofrent-Rateof interest.* Theplaintiffs defendants_5_to 7 and the ancestor of defendants 8to 13leased the forest rights in their villages to defendants 1and.2 at an annual rental. The deed mentioned the share of each lessee and the annual rent for the purpose of indicating what amount wouldbecon- tributed by each of them towards the rent jointly payable by them.It was stated in the lease that the entire lease would be terminable on de- fault of payment of rent for two consecutive years and the lessee shall pay interest at Re. 1 per cent in case of defualt, and that the lessors either separately or jointly shall realise the amount according· to their choice. Defendant 3wasa transfereeofa portion of lessees' interest from defendantI. The plaintiff-lessors filed a suit in September 1954 claiming a decree of their share of rent for 1356to1360 Fasli and interest thereon. Theplea that suit was barred by limitation was not taken in the written statement. Defendant 2 died and his heirs were substituted as defendants 2 andZ(a). The trial court decreed the suit. On appeal, the High Court held that (i) the defendants 1to3 were liable topay the amount of the annual rent uptothe extent of their respective shares; (ii) as the lease deed granted a lease of forest rights, the suit was governed. by Art. Z(b)(1)of ScheduleIIIof the Bihar Tenancy Act, 1885 and consequently the suit in respect of rent for 1356 and 1357 Faslis was barred by limitation; and (iii) in view ofs.67of the Bihar Tenancy Act the plaintiffs could claim at the rate of 6{% per annum only. Inappeal, this Court,	c D E F\|.. •
HELD: The defendants 1 to 3 were jointly and severally liable to pay the plaintiff's share of the rent for 1358, 1359' and 1360 Faslis and simpleinte'restthereonat6!% perannumuptodate.
(i)Thedeed mentioned the share of eachJesse!' and the annual rentforthe purposeofindicating what amount would be contributed by each of them towards the rent jointly payable bv them.Thejoint liability ofthe lesseeswasclearly indicatedbythepro,;sion that the entire lease would be terminable on default on paymentofrent for two consecutive years. Having regard tos.43 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872 defen- dants 1 and 2 were jointly and severally liable to pay the rent. and the liability of defendant 3 stood on the same footing. [362H-363B] (ii) Unders.184 of the Bihar Tenancy Act a suit instituted after the expiry of the periodoflimitationisliabletobedismissed though limita- tionisnot pleaded. The respondent was rightly allowedtoraise the	G H	• •

¶7

R, s. SINGH v. SHYAMLATA (Bachawat, J.)

¶8

36 J

¶9

A point of limitation though the plea was not taken in the written statement. [363 CJ

• ?

• •

•

The lease-deed granted a lease in respect of forest rights only. It gave the lessees the right to cut and appropriate trees of certain types and the fruits and flowers of certain fruit bearing trees. The right to open roads and to construct buildings were incidental to the right to enjoy a forest produce. The suit was for recovery of rent in respect of B forest produce and having regard to s. 193 of the Bihar Tenancy Act was governed by Art. 2(b)(l) of the Schedule III therefore. The special period of limitation applied though the claim for arrears of rent was claimed on a registered document. [363 D-F] The suit in respect of rent for 1356 and 1357 was barred by limitation.

¶14

C Abdulu/lah v. Asraf Ali, 7 C.L.J. 152, Bande Ali Fakir v. Amud Sarkar, 10 C.W.N. 415 and Mackenzie v. Haji Syed Muhammad Ali Khan, l.L.R. 19 Cal. I, approved. (iii) Interest was payable at the rate of 6}% per annum only. By s. 193 of the Bihar Tenancy Act all the provisions of the Act applied to the suit. Section 67 (1) provides that arrears of rent shall bear simple interest at the rate of 6}% per annum. The section overrides the conD tractual stipulation that the interest be payable at· I% per annum. [363 F-G]

¶15

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 23 of

¶16

¶17

, •

¶18

Appeal from the judgment and decree dated May 11, 1962 of the Patna High Court in Appeal from Original Decree No. 169 E of 1958. U. P. Singh, for the appellants. Sarjoo Prasad and R. C. Prasad, for respondents Nos. 1 and 2 . The Judgment of the Court was delivered by F

¶19

Bacbawat J. The plaintiffs, defendants 5 to 7 and the ancestor of defendants 8 to 13 were the sixteen anna proprietors of certain villages in district Shahbad. By a registered deed dated October 3, 1944 they leased the forest rights in the villages to the defendants 1 and 2 for a period of 9 years ending Bhado 30, 1360 Fasli corresponding to September 2, 1953 at an annua: -0 rent of Rs. 16,000. The plaintiffs had 6 annas share in the proprietary rights in the villages and Rs. 6,000 was fixed as their share of the annual rent. The defendant No. 3 was a transferee of a portion of a lessees' interest from defendant 1. On September 3, 1954 the plaintiffs instituted a suit claiming a decree against defendants 1 and 2 for Rs. 36,405 on account of their H share of the rent for 1356 to 1360 Faslis and interest thereon at 1 % per annum. During the pendency of the suit, defendant 2 died and his heirs were substituted as defendants 2 and 2 (a). The Trial Court decreed the suit on contest against defendants 2 and L3 Sup./69-6

¶20

[1969) 2 S.C.R.

¶21

SUPREME COURT REPORTS

¶22

362

¶23

2 (a) and ex-parte against defendants 1 and 3 with future interest and costs. On appeal, the High Court held that ( 1 J as defen<iant 2 had only 4 anna share in the lessees' interest as ment1m1ed in the lease deed and as he had acquired another one anna share in the lessees' interest subsequently, defendants 2 and 2(a) were liable to pay only 5 annas share in the annual rent, that is to say, Rs. 1,875 per annum and defendants 1 and 3 were liable to pay the balance rent; ( 2) as the lease deed granted a lease of forest rights, the suit was governed by Art. 2(b)(i) of Schedule III of the Bihar Tenancy Act, 1885 and consequently the suit in respect of rent for 1356 and 1357 Faslis was barred by limitation, and ( 3) in view of sec. 67 of the Bihar Tenancy Act the plaintiffs could claim interest at the rate of 6±% per annum only. Accordingly the High Court allowed the appeal in part and passed a decree against defendants 2 and 2(a) for 5 annas share of the rent for 1358 to 1360 Faslis and a separate decree against defendant:; 1 and 3 for the balance rent for those years with interest at 6t% per annum. The plaintiffs have filed the present appeal after obtaining a certificate. from the High Court. The appellants challenge the correctness of all the findings of the High Court.

A

B

c

D

, ..

Clause 3 of the lease deed provided :

¶30

"that the lessees shall pay an annual Zama of Rs. 16,000 in respect of the thika property on 1st Kuar of every year. If for any reason, the rent for two conE secutive years shall fall into arrears in that case the lessors shall be competent to enter into khas possession and occupation of the thika property and to this the lessees shall have no objection and in case of making default the lessees shall pay an interest at the rate of Re. 1 per cent till the date of payment. The lessors either separately or jointly shall realise (the amount) to the extent of their respective shares according to their choice by instituting in conrt with interest thereon mentioned above from the persons and oroperties of the lessees." ·

¶31

At the end of the ]ease it was stated iliat defendant 1 had twelve anna share i.il ilie lessees' interest and his share of the rent was Rs. 12000. It was also stated that defendant 2 had 4 anna share in the lessees' interest and his share of ilie rent was Rs. 4000. Clause 3 of the deed clearly shows that the lessees were jointly liable to pay the annual rent of Rs. 16000. The deed mentioned the share of each lessee and the annual rent for the purpose of indicating what amount would be contributed by each of them towards the rent jointly payable by them. The joint liability of the les,ees is clearly indicated by the provision iliat entire lease

0

H

'

R. s. SINGH V, SHYAMLATA (Bachawat, J.)

¶36

363

¶37

A

¶38

w,1uld be te1minable on default of payment of rent for two cons~ cutive years. Having regard to sec. 43 of the Indian Contract Act 1872 defendants I and 2 were jointly and severally !table to pay the rent. It was not disputed before the High Comt that the liabiJity of defendant 3 stood on the same footmg.. Th~ High C,iurt was in error in holding that defendant 2 was hable to pay only 5 anna share in the rent.

• ·' "

~

B

• ·~

The High Court was right in allowing the defendant to iaise the point of limitation, though the plea was not taken in the written statement. Under s. 184 of the Bihar Tenancy Act a suit instituted after the expiry of the period of limitation is liable to be jim1issed though limitation has not been pleaded. I.earned C'oun<el for the appellants could not tell us what further e\idence his clients could adduce on this point. In the circumstances, the absei.~e of the plea of limitation in the written statement did not cause the appellants any prejudice.

¶44

c

¶45

On a careful reading of the lease deed, we are ~atisfied that it granted a lease in respect of forest rights only. It gave the lessees the right to cut and appropriate trees of certain types and the fruits and flowers of certain fruit bearing trees. The righ1 to open roads and to construct buildings were incidental to the right to enjoy the forest produce. The suit is for recovery of rent in respect of forest produce and having regard to sec. 193 of the Bihar Tenancy Act is governed by Art. 2(b)(i) of the Schedule III there10. This view is supported by the decisions of the C:.Jcutta High Court in Abdulullah v. Asraf Ali(') and Bande Ali Fakir v. Amud Sarkar('). The special period of limitation pplies though the claim for arrears of rent is founded on a reistered instrument, (see Mackenzie v. Haji S)•cd Muhammad Ali Khan.(') The High Court was right in holding that the suit in resDect of rent for Fasli years 1356 and 1357 was barred by limitution.

¶46

I~ D

¶47

•

¶48

Having regard to sec. 193 all the provisions of the Act applied to a suit. Section 67 (1) provides that arrears of rent shall bear simple interest at the rate of 6f% per annum. The section overrides the contractual stipulatio~ that the interest would be payable at 1 % per annum. The High Court was right in holding that interest was payable at the rate of 6f% per annum only.

¶49

• G

¶50

In the result, the appeal is allowed in part and it is declared that defendants 1, 2, 2(a) and 3 are jointly and severallv liable to pay to the plaintiffs Rs. 6000 per annum on account of the plaintiffs' share of rent for Fasli years 1358, 1359 and 1360 and simpI: interest thereon at the rate of 6!% per annum upto date. We direct that a decree be drawn up accordingly. The decree will carry future interest on the principal sum at the rate of I)%

¶51

'

¶52

H We will carry future interest (1) 7C.L.J.152.

¶53

(2) J9C.W.N. 415.

¶54

(3) l.L.R. 19 CCI. 1.

¶55

364 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1969] 2 S.C.R. per annum. The aforesaid defendants will pay to the plaintifis A proportionate costs of the suit in the Trial Court. The parties will bear their own costs of the appeal in the High Court and in this Court. This decree will be without prejudice to the payments, if any, made by the defendants to the plaintifis after the institution of the suit. B ' Y.P. Appeal partly allowed.

¶56

• • •

Rama Shankar Singh & Anr. v. Mst. Shyamlata Devi and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

Rama Shankar Singh & Anr. v. Mst. Shyamlata Devi and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Bhagwan Das versus Paras Nath

Satish Kumar & Ors. versus Surinder Kumar & Ors.

Mohd. Usman Military Contractor, Jhansi versus Union of India, Ministry of Defence

Badri Prasad versus State of Madhya Pradesh & Anr.

Bahadur Singh & Anr. versus Muni Subrat Dass & Anr.

Surja versus Hardeva and Ors.