LALA RAM CHANDRA SARUP Vs. SRIMATI KIRPA DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The two Appeals NOS. 166 and 172 of 1919 are connected and arise out of a suit brought by Musammat Srimati Kirpa Devi against Lala Ramchandra Sarup for the recovery of her share of the profits for the years 1320 to 1322 Fasli. The suit was instituted in the Court of the Assistant Collector of Meerut on the 31 July 1916 and it was alleged by her that the defendant Ramchandra Sarup was the Lambardar of the village Khadela and had been negligent in collecting the rents and, therefore, she was entitled to recover her share of the profits on the gross rental and not on actual realisation. She claimed Rs. 7,146-0-4 which sum included interest also. The claim was resisted on various pleas. It was urged on behalf of the defence that there was a written agreement executed between the parties on the 31 December 1914 under which all disputes outstanding between them were to be decided by one Babu Madusudan Dayal, and that as the greater portion of the claim relates to a period antecedent to the 31 December 1914 the claim of the plaintiff fails. It was further urged that, as a matter of fact, Ramchandra Sarup had referred not only the question of the amount of the share of profits due to the plaintiff, but other matters outstanding between her and himself to the arbitrator, who was considering the points in dispute when the plaintiff rushed into Court with the present suit, The defendant claimed a large amount on account of village expenses and stated that, under the agreement of the 31 December. 1914, no interest was to be charged by either party on any account. The learned Assistant Collector, accepting the plea of the defense based upon the agreement of the 31 December 1914, referred the dispute to Babu Madusudan Dayal. For some reason the arbitrator did not decide the case and sent back the file to the Court. The case was tried and evidence was recorded. The lower Court passed a decree in favour of Kirpa Devi for Rs. 5,018-13-9, allowing her interest at the rate of 12 per cent. per mensem up to the date of the institution of the suit and 6 per sent, per annum pendente lite and after the decree until such time as the decree was realised.

(2.) Both parties have some up in appeal before us. The appeal of Ramchandra Sarup is No. 166 of 1919 and that of Kirpa Devi No. 177 of 1919. We shall dispose of both the appeals by this judgment.

(3.) It is contended on behalf of Ramchandra Sarup that the lower Court was in error in decreeing the claim of the plaintiff on gross rental and not on actual collections. It appears from the evidence on the record" that Ramchandra Sarup made all attempts that a careful Lambardar could make to realise rents. The amount of the actual collections shows that he realised 76 per cent. With regard to the rest brought suits and obtained decrees against defaulting tenants.