KANHAIYA LAL Vs. RHSKINNER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These four appeals arise out of two suits for profits brought by R.H. Skinner and others for their share of the profits of the villages of Kavanpur Jatta and Dhaulana respectively under Section 165, Agra Tenancy Act (No. 2 of 1901). Both these villages are included in the Skinner estate of thirteen villages belonging to the late Stuart Skinner, and on the death of the said Stuart Skinner, the property devolved on his three sons and two daughters. Each son received a one-fourth share and the two daughters received a one-fourth share between them. The one fourth share of Robert Skinner, one of the sons of Stuart Skinner, was purchased at an auction sale by R.H. Skinner, the husband of Ada Skinner, one of the daughters of the late Stuart Skinner, and as the result of this purchase R.H. Skinner, his wife Ada Skinner and her sister Fanny Skinner, became the owners of one-half in both these villages. One of the two remaining shares, the share of George Skinner, another son of Stuart Skinner, was sold and purchased first by one Dargahi Lal and afterwards, on 4 April 1923, by three persona, fianarsi Das, Kanhaiya Lal and Gobind Sarup. The present suits were filed against these persons and also against Victor Skinner, the son "of Robert Skinner, who was in the year 1330 Fasli the lambardar of the village Karanpur Jatta, and James, son of George Skinner, who was for the same period the lambardar of the village of Dhaulana, and the suits are for settlement of accounts and profits said to be due to the plaintiffs from these their other cosharers. The fact that Banarsi Das became the lambardar of these two villages in the year 1330 Fasli is not mentioned in either of the plaints; nor is this fact stated in any of the written statements. The case is brought by a co-sharer for profits against other cosharers under Section 165, Agra Tenancy Act (No. 2 of 1901).

(2.) The Assistant Collector found that these cosharers had collected in excess of their shares and he passed decrees in both suits. In respect of the village of Karanpur Jatta he gave a decree for Rs. 971 odd against Victor Skinner and for Rs. 1,674 against Banarsi Das and Kanhaiya Lal, but exempted Gobind Sarup. In respect of the village of Dhaulana he gave a decree for Rs. 1,219-12-0 against James Skinner and for Rs. 3,749 against Banarsi Das and Kanhaiya Lal, again exempting Gobind Sarup. The two Skinners, Victor and James, have not appealed, but appeals have been preferred in each case by Banarsi Das and Kanhaiya Lal on the one hand and by the plaintiffs on the other. The cass set up by the defendants-appellants in the lower Court was that there was a partition in the year 1918 among the members of the Skinner family by which each member collected his own share, and that consequently the defendants having purchased the share of George Skinner the plaintiffs had no concern with the defendants collections. This question however is not raised in appeal because it is not now disputed that the defendants-appellants have collected rents much in excess of their one-fourth share which they purchased from George Skinner. Their main grounds of appeal are, first, that the suits were not validly presented on behalf of Ada and Fanny Skinner; secondly, that the defendants have not received credit for certain expenses incurred by them; and thirdly, that decrees should have been passed against Gobind Sarup also. The first two grounds of appeal carry no weight. The suits were presented in a legal manner on behalf of the two ladies who were duly represented by their general attorney. The attempt made to show that this man's power to act for the ladies had been cancelled and not restored has been rightly rejected by the Court below.

(3.) As to the question of expenses, the lower Court has certainly adopted an improper method for calculating village expenses. It should have allowed a certain percentage on the actual collections. But the amount allowed is a reasonable amount in whichever way it is calculated. I would not be prepared to interfere with the discretion of the lower Court in this matter.