Skip to content


The Maharaja of Bobbili Vs. Ranku Appala Naidu - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectContract
CourtChennai
Decided On
Judge
Reported in32Ind.Cas.703
AppellantThe Maharaja of Bobbili
RespondentRanku Appala Naidu
Cases ReferredKattika Bapanamma v. Kattika Kristnamma
Excerpt:
evidence act (i of 1872), section 92 - contract to pay rent at fixed rate--oral evidence, whether admissible to prove variation of contract--payment for long time of smaller sum, whether entitles tenant to pay that rate always--agreement to accept lower rate for particular period, effect of. - .....has been varied. the lower courts are, therefore, wrong in holding that by the long payment of a smaller rent, the defendant has acquired a right for all time to come, to compel the plaintiff to receive only that rent.2. mr. ramesam has, however, drawn our attention to exhibit vi, which is a communication to his client from the zamin official in which it is stated that the reduction hitherto made in the rent will not be granted after the date of that letter, namely, april 1913. we regard this letter as agreeing to discharge the defendant from liability to pay the contract rate for a particular period and to accept in lieu thereof a smaller sum. no consideration is necessary for this remission and as pointed out in kattika bapanamma v. kattika kristnamma 17 m.l.j. 30, this plea will not.....
Judgment:

1. The claim is for rent for three Faslis ending with the 30th June 1912. The muchilika, Exhibit A, fixes the rent payable by the defendant, and it is not open to him to let in oral evidence to prove that the contract has been varied. The lower Courts are, therefore, wrong in holding that by the long payment of a smaller rent, the defendant has acquired a right for all time to come, to compel the plaintiff to receive only that rent.

2. Mr. Ramesam has, however, drawn our attention to Exhibit VI, which is a communication to his client from the zamin official in which it is stated that the reduction hitherto made in the rent will not be granted after the date of that letter, namely, April 1913. We regard this letter as agreeing to discharge the defendant from liability to pay the contract rate for a particular period and to accept in lieu thereof a smaller sum. No consideration is necessary for this remission and as pointed out in Kattika Bapanamma v. Kattika Kristnamma 17 M.L.J. 30, this plea will not offend against Section 92 of the Indian Evidence Act. The result is that the plaintiff is entitled to rent at the rate at which he has been receiving it till the end of Fasli 1321. As the plaintiff has been given a decree for the rent paid as usual by the Courts below, this second appeal fails and is dismissed. Each party will bear his own costs.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //