DURGA NARAIN SINGH Vs. SHANKER SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a plaintiff's second appeal, arising out of a suit to recover arrears of land-revenue.

(2.) Under a compromise, dated 4 March 1922, the plaintiff owns a 9 anna share, and the defendants have a 7 anna share in the village in question. The plaintiff instituted a suit in the trial Court to recover a sum of money from the defendants. It was alleged that the land-revenue for the village in question, relating to the years 1327 to 1331 F., had been paid by the plaintiff on account of the share, of the defendants, and the suit was for the recovery of the same. The claim was resisted by the defendants. Both the Courts below have dismissed the claim, and the plaintiff has come up to this Court in second appeal. As. regards the years 1327 and 1329 F. the learned District Judge found that the land revenue for the share of the defendants in respect of these years had been paid by them in Hardoi District. This finding is binding in second appeal, and has not been seriously challenged before me. As regards 1328 F., it will be seen that the land revenue was paid for the period before the date on which the title of the defendants to a 7 anna share under the terms of the compromise was recognised.

(3.) The real dispute between the parties in this appeal is as regards the payment made for 1330 and 1331 F. In para. 6 of the written statement, the defendants contended that they became responsible for the payment of the revenue to the extent of 7 anna share from the date of the compromise, that is to say, from 4th March 1922. In para. 7 of the written statement it was pleaded that the plaintiff, contrary to the terms of the compromise, made collections of the entire 16 anna share in the village, that defendants did not realise a single shell, and that if the plaintiff paid any amount on account of land revenue for the years 1330 and 1331 F, it was out of the profits of the defendants share, which, had been realized by him without any right and therefore be was not entitled to recover the same. Both the Courts below have come to the conclusion that the entire profits of the 16 anna share in the village were realised by the plaintiff in years 1330 and 1331 F, and that the defendants had made, no collections at all. The question for consideration is whether the plaintiff's claim for the land revenue which he paid on account of the 7 anna share of the defendants in the village can be defeated on the ground that in these two years the entire profits were realised by himself.