AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
The case of the Plaintiffs is that they held a permanent tenure under the Defendant No. 2, who was the talukdar of the taluk which formed part of taruf Dinomani, that this taruf was sold at a revenue sale under Act XI of 1859, and that, after the sale, the first Defendant alleging that he had obtained a settlement of the tenure from the auction purchaser who had annulled the taluk, took from the Plaintiffs a kabuliyat according to terms of which he realized the rent from them, that the second Defendant afterwards brought a suit against the Plaintiffs for recovery of the arrears of rent due on account of the tenure and obtained a decree notwithstanding that the first Defendant was examined as a witness in the case. They say that they then came to know that the right of the second Defendant in the taluk had not been extinguished and that the first Defendant had not acquired any right to the tenure. They accordingly pray that the Defendant may be restrained from demanding rent from them and to recover from him the sum of Rs. 72 paid on account of rent. In the alternative, they ask the Court to decide to which of the two Defendants they are bound to pay rent. The first and second Defendants put in written-statements each asserting his own title to the rent and the second Defendant contended that the Plaintiffs had no cause of action against him, and that the suit could not be maintained in the form in which it was brought. There was an issue on the latter point and the only other material issues were whether the Defendant No. 1 or Defendant No. 2 was entitled to get rents from the Plaintiffs for the disputed lands and whether the Plaintiffs were entitled to any relief. The first Court refused to give the Plaintiffs a decree for the refund of the rent holding that they had voluntarily paid it. The Court further held that the taluk of the second Defendant had been annulled and that the first Defendant was entitled to receive rent from the Plaintiffs. This decree was, on appeal by the second Defendant, affirmed by the Appellate Court. It is clear from the plaint (hat the Plaintiffs asked for no substantial relief against the second Defendant. What they wanted was a decree which would exonerate them from paying rent to the first Defendant and would give them back the amount of rent which had been paid by them to him. Whether they were entitled to such a decree or not, it is unnecessary to consider now. The Courts have not given it and there is no appeal on the part of the Plaintiffs.
Then, the question is whether the Plaintiffs had any right to bring a suit to determine whether the first Defendant or the second Defendant was their landlord. We know of no authority for holding that such a suit will lie. It is a case in which the Defendants are practically made to interplead as regards their title. Sec. 28 of the Procedure Code enacts that all persons may be joined as Defendants against whom the right to any relief is alleged to exist, whether jointly, severally or in the alternative, in respect of the same matter. But that does not warrant a suit of this description. The Plaintiffs had no cause of action against the second Defendant beyond that he demanded rent from them and obtained a decree for that rent. Their only cause of action against the first Defendant was that he had, on some other occasion, demanded and received rent from them. That cannot be considered the same matter within the meaning of the section. Nor can the suit be regarded as an interpleader suit, for a tenant cannot bring a suit against his landlord for the (sic) of compelling him to interplead (sic) person other than a person making claim through such landlord. The Courts have held that the Plaintiffs are not entitled to the relief asked for as against Defendant No. 1 and on the plaint, they are not entitled to any relief as against Defendant No. 2. In fact they ask as against that Defendant for nothing but a hare declaration and they ask for it in a form in which a declaration could not be granted. The result is that the suit fails, and must be dismissed with costs. The Defendants will get their respective costs from the Plaintiffs of the first Court and the second Defendant will get his costs from the Plaintiffs in this and the Lower Appellate Court.