K.N. Muhamad Mohideen Ambalam vs R. Shanmugarajeswara Naganatha Sethupathi Avl. Rajah of Ramnad through his authorised Dewan Sri J. Balaji Rao

Ganapatia Pillai, J.—The defendant is the appellant The suit out of which the appeal arises was laid by the Raja of of Ramanathapuram,

respondent, against the appellant for recovery of a total sum of Rs. 8710-1-7. representing arrears of poruppu, cesses and manibaswatantaram,

and interest thereon, for fastis 1355 to 1358 The appellant resisted the suit on various grounds; but for the purpose of this appeal it is enough to

state the two main grounds. The first is that the claim for the period of three years beyond the date of plaint was barred by limitation inasmuch as

according to the appellant the Article of the Limitation Act applicable was either 110 or 115 and not 120 The second ground was that the entire

suit was not maintainable because the compromise decrees Exs. A 1 and A 2, which were relied on in the plaint as embodying an agreement

between the parties to pay certain amounts by way of ceases and manibaswatantaram having not been registered, the claim baaed on such

compromise decree could not be enforced in this suit. The learned Subordinate Judge overruled both these contentions and gave a decree for the

entitle sum claimed. On the second point about no registration of the compromise decrees, learned Counsel for the appellant urged that in the

absence of registration of the compromise decrees, there was no subsisting relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties and

consequently no rent was due at all This argument proceeds on a fallacy The compromise decrees purported only to increase in effect some of the

items making up the total amount collectable by the landlord from the tenant. It did not establish the relationship of landlord and tenant between the

parties. The agreement between the parties embodied in the compromise does not increase the rate of preppy payable by the tenant under the

lease deed already existing. It merely provides for payment of manibaswatantaram and ceases as per law. The no registration of the compromise

decrees does not therefore affect the maintainability of the claim because the claim is based even now on the original lease which is valid and

subsisting between the parties regarding the poruppu payable.

On the first point we find that the learned Subordinate judge has not made a distinction between the statutory liability in respect of cusses and

manibaswatantaram and the contractual liability for propped. He has treated both these classes of claims on a par and held that Art. 120 of the

Limitation Act applies to both. In our opinion in respect of preppy the claim will be in time only if it is brought within three years from the date of

accrual of the cause of action, since only Art. 115 of the Limitation Act would apply. The decision relied upon by the learned Subordinate Judge

for his conclusion [Arunachalam Chetti v. Rajeswara Saturate 22 L.W. 195 was a case where the suit was laid to enforce the liability created by a

statute. It was held in that case that for enforcing such a liability Art. 120 of the Limitation Act applied. This decision applies only in the case of

cusses and manibaswatantsrsm and can have no application in the cars of poruppa. Differing from the learned Subordinate judge, we hold that in

the case of poruppu claimed in the plaint Act. 115 of the Limitation Act applies since there is no proof that the lease deed was registered. As

regards interest payable on the amount of poruppu, for the period within three years before the date of plaint the respondent would be entitled to

claim it at 12 per cent per annum as provided in the compromise decree. As regards cusses and manibaswatantaram, we hold that this is a

statutory liability which the landlord is entitled to enforce against the tenant by reason of S. 73 of the Madras Local Boards Act. The amount

claimed in the plaint for cases and manibaswatantaram is not barred, as Art. 120 of the Limitation Act applies to this claim. As regards interest on

cusses and manibaswatanram, inter, est. at 12 per cent per annum could be awarded only for the amount due for the three years prior to suit For

the back period no interest could be awarded. For the total sum thus due from the date of plaint, interest will be awarded at six per cent per annum

till date of realization The decree of the lower Court is thus modified and the appeal is allowed in part. As regards costs of appeal, both parties will

bear their own costs. But the respondent will get half his costs in the lower Court from the plaintiff.