HARI SHANKAR Vs. NARENDRA PRATAP BAHADUR SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS second appeal arises out of a suit filed by the plaintiff respondents Nos. 1 to 7 for recovery of their half share in the rent realised by the defendant-appellant from the defen dant-respondents Nos. 8 to 16, to whom certain shops had been let out The his tory, as regards these shops, was that before they had been constructed the plaintiffs-respondents were the Zemin dars of this site. Some time before the abolition of the Zamindari. that is on 24-9-1951. the defendant-appellant ap proached the Zamindars and requested them to give that land to him for con struction of the shops. The Zamindars accepted this request subject to certain terms which were embodied in a written agreement dated 24-9-1951 executed be tween them. One of the terms was that on this Parti land the defendant-appel lant would construct the shops at his own expense but the plan of construc tion shall be approved by both the par ties. After the shops had been con structed they would be let out with the consent of both the parties and the rent realised from the tenants of the shoes shall be divided half and half between them. It was. however, specifically pro vided in this agreement that the owner ship of the land would always vest In the Zamindars while the ownership of the constructions shall vest in the de fendant-appellant, but the two owner ships shall not be separated from each other and none of the parties can trans fer the ownership of his individual pro perty. The agreement will remain in force for ever and be binding not only on the parties but their successors also.

(2.) AFTER the abolition of Zamin dari the defendant-appellant alone start ed realising rents from the tenants of these shops and appropriating those amounts to himself without paying any share to the plaintiffs-respondents. The plaintiffs-respondents, therefore, filed a suit for recovery of their half share in the rents so realised by the defendant-appellant

(3.) THE trial Court held that both the shops, existing on the land in question, belonged to both the parties and as such their site shall also be deemed to be settled with both of them under Section 9. On this finding the plaintiffs' claim for half the share in the rent was de creed against the defendant-appellant