HELD v. SHYAMLATA (Bachawat

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 simple inte'rest thereon at 6!% per annum up to date. (i) The deed mentioned the share of each Jesse!' the annual rent for the purpose of indicating what amount would be contributed by each of them towards the rent jointly payable bv them. The joint liability of the lessees was clearly indicated by the pro,;sion that the entire lease would be terminable on default on payment of rent for two consecutive years. Having regard to s. 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. [362 H-363B] (ii) Under s. 184 of the Bihar Tenancy Act a suit instituted after the expiry of the period of limitation is liable to be dismissed though limita tion is not pleaded. The respondent was rightly allowed to A B c D E •• ~ "/ .. '-. • -· .. F \ • G H • • R, s. SINGH v. SHYAMLATA (Bachawat, J.) 36 J point of limitation though the plea was not taken in the written state ment. [363 CJ respect of forest The lease-deed granted a lease in It gave the lessees the right to cut and appropriate trees of certain 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 en- joy a forest produce. The suit was for recovery of rent in respect of 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] rights only. A B • ? • • • • , The suit in respect of rent for 1356 and 1357 was barred by limita tion. 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. D E F -0 H (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 con- tractual stipulation that the interest be payable at· I% per annum. [363 F-G] CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 23 of

#1966. Appeal from the judgment and decree dated May 11, 1962 of the Patna High Court in Appeal from Original Decree No. 169 of 1958. U. P. Singh, for the appellants. Sarjoo Prasad and R. C. Prasad, and 2 . respondents Nos. 1 The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Bacbawat J. The plaintiffs, defendants 5 to 7 and the an cestor 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: rent of Rs. 16,000. The plaintiffs had 6 annas share in the pro prietary rights in the villages and Rs. 6,000 was share of the annual rent. The defendant No. 3 was a transferee of a portion of a lessees' interest from defendant 1. On Septem ber 3, 1954 the plaintiffs instituted a suit claiming a decree against defendants 1 and 2 for Rs. 36,405 on account of 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 fixed as L3 Sup./69-6 362 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1969) 2 S.C.R. 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 res pect 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. Accord ingly the High Court allowed the appeal in part and passed a de cree 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 ob taining a certificate. from the High Court. The appellants chal lenge the correctness of all the findings of the High Court. Clause 3 of the lease deed provided : "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 con secutive years shall fall into arrears in that case lessors shall be competent to enter into khas posses sion and occupation of 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 realise (the amount) to the extent of their respective shares accord ing to their choice by instituting in conrt with interest thereon mentioned above from the persons and oroper- ties of the lessees." thika property and · A B c D E , .. ' 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.) 363 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 It was not disputed before the High Comt that to pay the rent. 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. The High Court was right in allowing the defendant to iaise the point of limitation, though the plea was not written statement. Under s. 184 of the Bihar Tenancy Act a suit instituted after the expiry of the period of limitation is liable I.earned to be jim1issed though limitation has not been pleaded. 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. It gave On a careful reading of the lease deed, we are ~atisfied that it granted a lease in respect of forest rights only. 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 res pect 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 ~pplies though the claim for arrears of rent is founded on a re~istered 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. limitation 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 over rides the contractual stipulatio~ that the interest would be pay able at 1 % per annum. The High Court was right in holding that interest was payable at the rate of 6f% per annum only. • ·' " ~ • ·~ A B c I~ D • • G 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 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)% ' H (1) 7C.L.J.152. (3) l.L.R. 19 CCI. 1. (2) J9C.W.N. 415. 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. Y.P. Appeal partly allowed. B ' • • •