1. This appeal is presented by alandlord from a decree made by the District Judgeof South Kanara, in appeal, by which ho modifiedthe decree made by the District Munsiff, in hisfavour.
2. The suit out of which this appeal arises was brought by the plaintiff for recovery of a sum of Rs. 41-13-0, which consisted of the arrears of rent, the enhanced assessment and the interest thereon due from his tenant defendant 1. It is admitted that there was a mulgeni lease granted to defendant 1 by defendant 2 who was the yajaman of the family to which the land belonged, under exhibit A-1 on July 2, 1928.
3. On December 14, 1934, under Exhibit B-1, which was an award made between the members of the family of defendant 2 there was a partition between defendant 2 and his brother under which the land which was the subject-matter of the mul-geni lease was divided into two equal shares. Defendant 2 got one of those shares and his brother Subbarayappa got the other. Plaintiff purchased Subbarayappa's share in that land on December 3, 1953.
4. Although the plaintiff thus became entitled only to the half share which belonged to Subbaray-appa, under the purchase made by him, in the suit brought by him against defendants 1 and 2. very curiously, he claimed that there should be a charge in respect of the suit amount over the entire property including that portion of it which fell to share of defendant 2 in the partition.
5. The Munsiff made a decree in his favour to that effect. But, the District Judge, in appeal gave the plaintiffs a charge only on the half share of Subbarayappa.
6. In this appeal, on behalf of the plaintiff Mr. Krishna Rao, bis learned Advocate, complains that that modification made by the District Judge was unjustified.
7. I do not agree. The case for the plaintiff in the plaint was that after the partition between Subbarayappa and defendant 2, the tenant was paying the rent payable by him both to Subbarayappa and defendant 2 in equal shares. The tenant produced a written statement in which he admitted that fact. The District Judge was of the view that the payment of the rent in that way by the tenant was established. Having reached that conclusion, the District Judge proceeded to consider whether the charge which was Created under the mulgeni Exhibit A-1 in favour of the landlord in respect of the rent which was reserved under that document was enforceable in its entirety by the plaintiff although he had become the owner of only the half-share of the land belonging to Subbarayappa. The view taken by the District Judge was that in the circumstances of the case, the integrity of the charge must be regarded to have been broken and, with that view expressed by the District Judge, I entirely agree.
8. Mr. Shivashankar Bhatta, the learned Advocate for defendant I, has relied on authoritative summing up of the law on this question found in Halsbury's Laws of England, Third Edition, Volume 23, page 660, paragraph 1380. In regard to the law applicable to the severance of reversion, this is what is stated in that book:-
'1380. Severance of reversion. The reversion may be divided as regards either the estate or the land. It is divided as regards the estate when it is granted for years with remainder over, and the owner of such limited interest in the reversion can, by the statute already referred to. enforce the tenant's covenants and take advantage of the conditions. It is divided as regards the land when the reversion in part of the land becomes vested in one person and the reversion in another part in another person. This is known as a severance of the reversion.
Notwithstanding the severance by conveyance, surrender, or otherwise of the reversionary estate in any land comprised in a lease, and notwithstanding the avoidance or cesser in any other manner of the term granted by a lease as to part only of the land comprised therein, every condition or right of re-entry, and every other condition contained in the lease, are apportioned, and remain annexed to the severed parts of the reversionary estate as severed, and are in force with respect to the term whereon each severed part is reversionary, or the term in the part of the land as to which the term has not been surrendered, or has not been avoided or has not otherwise ceased, in like manner as if the land comprised in each severed part, or the land as to which the term remains subsisting, as the case may be, had alone originally been comprised in the lease.'
9. When the above principles are applied to this case, the conclusion becomes clear that the condition of the lease in regard to the charge was also apportioned after the partition between Sub barayappa and defendant 2.
10. This appeal fails and is dismissed withcosts.
11. Appeal dismissed.