BAKHSHISH SINGH Vs. KARTAR SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The only question in each of these cases is whether a person, who cultivates land in partnership with the owner of the land on condition of receiving a share of the produce, is a co-sharer in the holding within the meaning of section 77(3)(k) of the Punjab Tenancy Act.

(2.) The plaintiff in each of these cases joined the defendant to cultivate the defendant's land and the agreement was that the defendant would pay the plaintiff a fixed share of the produce. The suit in each case was brought on the allegation that the defendant had not made payment according to the agreement and the question arose in each case whether the suit was cognizable by the Revenue Court alone or by the Civil Court. The answer, as already indicated, depends on whether the plaintiff is to be called a co-sharer in the holding, for if he is then the suit would undoubtedly lie in the Revenue Court alone as a suit by a co-sharer in a holding for a share of the profits thereof.

(3.) The only decided case directly bearing on this question is Sundar Singh v. Kesar Singh, 24 Supp PunLR 1904 , where Rattigan, J. took the view that such a suit was a suit by a co-sharer in the holding and, therefore, cognizable by a Revenue Court alone and although when one of the present cases came before me in the first instance I was doubtful if that view was correct, I now find that it has stood for such a long time, that nothing is to be gained by disturbing it.