SHEO CHARAN Vs. PANNA LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This was a suit in which the lambardar of a certain village claimed from the entire body of co-sharers the remuneration, at the rate of 5 per cent. on the revenue payable in respect of their shares, to which he was entitled under the provisions of Section 144 of the United Provinces Land Revenue Act, Local Act No. III of 1901, subject to rules properly made by the Board of Revenue under Section 234 of the said Act. The rules which were so made have been laid before us, and they seem on their wording clear and simple enough. They are reproduced at page 132 and the following pages of Dr. M.L. Agarwala's valuable Commentary on the United Provinces Land Revenue Act, edition of 1919. They appear to have been promulgated in the year 1902. By paragraph 22 of the said rules, where there was in existence on the date on which those rules came into force an agreement between the lambardar and the co-sharers fixing the amount which the lambardar, by virtue of his appointment, was entitled to receive from the co-sharers by way of remuneration, such amount was to continue to be payable, subject to the rule which immediately follows. That rule is in the following words: (No. 23) "Where no amount is so payable, or where, upon the expiry of the current settlement of a temporarily settled mahal, the agreement is repudiated by either or both the parties thereto, the lamburdar will be entitled to receive from the co-sharers whom he represents 5 per cent. upon the land revenue payable by them in respect of their shares, or such less amount as may be agreed upon between him and them.

(2.) On its plain wording this rule seems to mean that the lambardar is always to get some remuneration, either a remuneration the amount of which is to be fixed by agreement between the co-parcenary body generally, or the 5 per cent. prescribed by the rule itself. This is the plain effect of the words "when no amount is so payable."

(3.) On the finding which has been returned, and upon which the decision of the learned Judge of this Court is based, there is no amount payable to the plaintiff lambardar by agreement. The alternative seems to follow; the co-sharers, unless they can persuade the lambardar to come to an agreement, or can come to an agreement amongst themselves before the next lambardar is appointed and secure the appointment of a lambardar willing to come to terms, will have to continue to pay the 5 per cent. on the land revenue prescribed by the rules. This was the view taken by the Assistant Collector who tried this suit in the first instance. The learned District Judge in appeal, and a learned Judge of this Court in second appeal, have construed the words at the beginning of Rule No. 23, above quoted, as if they meant "where no agreement has been come to as to the amount payable to the lambardar." Beading the rule in this way, they have held that the parties to this litigation are governed by an agreement to the effect that nothing is to be paid to the lambardar. The criticism which occurs to one on this interpretation of the rule is that, if the Board of Revenue had intended the effect to be what the lower appellate court and the learned Judge of this Court have held, it would have been quite easy to say so. As they stand, the words, "where no amount is so payable," do mean that the provisions which follow in the same rule are to come into force in all cases where there is not some ascertainable amount payable to the lambardar by virtue of an agreement.