GOBIND RAM Vs. JUGAL KISHORE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a plaintiff's appeal arising out of a suit by a cosharer for accounts against the other cosharers including the lambardar under Section 165 of the old Agra Tenancy Act. Only four points are urged in the grounds of appeal. The first is that as the lambardar was not realizing the rents and distributing the profits but the cosharers were making collection directly, the lambardar should not have been allowed the lambardar's remuneration at five per cent. This point has no force. The duties of the lambardar are manifold and are not confined to the realization of rents and distribution of the profits. So long as he holds the office he is entitled to his prescribed dues.

(2.) The second point is that the decree should have been based on a gross rental against the lambardar. When it was conceded that by arrangement the cosharers were allowed to make their own collection, no question of the negligence of the lambardar arose if the total amount of rents were not collected. In this suit it was unnecessary to go into the question of any alleged negligence of the lambardar. As regards the cosharers the lower appellate Court has acted rightly in allowing these cosharers who had made collections to appropriate the full amount of their shares of profits according to the gross rental and account for the surplus only.

(3.) The third point urged is that the interest pendente lite should have been allowed at 12 per cent and not at six per cent. The matter was discretionary and I am unable to interfere in the exercise of the discretion by the lower appellate Court.