LALA ASA RAM Vs. LALA RAM CHANDER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal by the defendants in a suit under Section 221, Agra Tenancy Act (3 of 1926), brought by a lambardar against two cosharers for recovery of revenue paid by the lambardar on behalf of the cosharers. The plaintiff, Ram Chander, and the defendants Asa Ram and Shib Saran Das are cosharers in khewats Nos. 1 and 2 of mohal Barumal in village Kota in Saharan-pur district and the plaintiff, Ram Chander, is the lambardar of the mohal. On 15 July 1938 the plaintiff, Ram Chander, raised an action in the Court of the Assistant Collector, First Class, Saharanpur, under Section 221, Agra Tenancy Act, alleging that for the years 1342 to 1344 F., the plaintiff paid the revenue which the defendants were liable to pay for their share of the said two khewats and consequently he claimed a decree for a sum of Rs. 2527-12-6 against the defendants.

(2.) The trial Court decreed the claim with regard to khewat No. 1 but dismissed the claim with regard to khewat No. 2 holding that the plaintiff as lambardar was also a collecting cosharer in khewat No. 2 and he had not shown that the collections which he had made were insufficient for the payment of Government revenue. In the end, the trial Court passed a decree for Rs. 72-9-0 in relation to khewat No. 1 in favour of the plaintiff. Against this decree, the plaintiff made an appeal and the District Judge of Saharanpur granted to the plaintiff a decree for the entire sum claimed. The learned District Judge came to the conclusion that the plaintiff as lambardar of the mohal had an absolute right to recover from the defendants the share of the Government revenue which the plaintiff paid on behalf of the defendants and the question whether the plaintiff made any collections with regard to this khewat and whether those collections exceeded or did not exceed the amount of revenue which the plaintiff paid was a matter which could not be considered in this suit.

(3.) Against this decision, the defendants have made this second appeal and the main question which arises for our consideration in the case is whether the plaintiff lambardar has an absolute right to demand revenue from the defendants irrespective of the question whether he had collected the rent and profits of the defendants share or not and irrespective of the question whether the collections made by him exceeded or fell short of the demand of the Government revenue. So far back as the year 1889 it was held in this Court in Dharam Pal V/s. Madan Mohan (92) 1892 A. W. N. 72 that in a suit by a lambardar against a cosharer to recover the cosharer's portion of Government revenue paid by the lambardar it lies upon the plaintiff to show that he had in his capacity of lambardar exercised due diligence in the collection of rents.