KANHAIYALAL TULSIRAM KURMI Vs. LILADHAR RAO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal and civil Revision No. 700 of 1941 arise out of civil Suit No. 1 of 1940 and this judgment governs the disposal of both. The facts are that one Saheblal Singh, who was the proprietor of Mouza Bharkawadi, had in 1918 mortgaged his village in favour of one Misrilal. In 1928 he sold the village to Sunderlal and Kanhaiyalal reserving his cultivating rights in the sir land of the village. In 1929 Kanhaiyalal was appointed lambardar and continued to act as the lambardar up to the end of January 1941. On 30th April 1929, Saheblal Singh was adjudged insolvent and in 1932 Amarchand came to be appointed a receiver of the in solvency estate. At his instance the sale of the village in favour of Kanhaiyalal was annulled by the insolvency Court in 1987. Mishrilal filed civil Suit No. 6 of 1988 and obtained a preliminary decree on his mortgage and, later on, in Miscellanous Appeal No. 27 of 1984 the High Court by its order dated 16th September 1987 appointed in that suit Liladhar Rao receiver of the mortgaged property with full rights to recover rents and profits of the village. Saheblal Singh the original proprietor of the village died in 1980 and was succeeded by Mt. Ramdularibai, his widow, who having died in 1938 Kanhaiyalal succeeded to Saheblal Singh's right in the village as a reversioner.

(2.) AS a result of the sale of 1929, Kanhaiyalal became the proprietor and Saheblal Singh acquired ex-proprietary occupancy tenant right in the sir land in which he had reserved his cultivating right. In 1987 Kanhaiyalal ceased to be the proprietor as the result of the annulment of the sale in his favour by the insolvency Court and the proprietary rights in the village vested in the insolvency Court. Mt. Ramdularibai consequently became the ex-proprietary tenant on the death of her husband in 1980. On Mt. Ramdularibai's death in 1988, Kanhaiyalal became the ex-proprietary occupancy tenant as a reversioner to Saheblal Singh. He was, as already stated above, the lambardar from 1929 to 1941. On 15th January 1940 Liladhar Rao, who had been appointed receiver in Miscellaneous Appeal No. 27 of 1984, and Amarchand, the receiver appointed by the insolvency Court, filed a suit (civil suit No. 1 of 1940) out of which this appeal arises against Kanhaiyalal for recovering rents for the years 1936-37, 1937-38 and 1938-39. Kanhaiyalal contended that, as neither of the plaintiffs was a lambardar or a proprietor, neither had any right to sue for rent. These contentions succeeded in the first Court but failed in the appellate Court. Mishrilal, who had been appointed as a so-called temporary lambardar on 31st January 1941 applied for being substituted as plaintiff in the rent suit in place of the receivers, Liladhar Rao and Amarchand. Mishrilal's application was allowed by the lower appellate Court. The revision petition filed here is directed against that order.

(3.) THERE is no substance in the other contention that the receiver not being the real proprietor is incompetent to recover rents. The receiver possesses all the rights of the proprietor necessary for the proper management of the property entrusted to his charge. This contention in fact stands overruled by the specific terms of this High Court's judgment dated 16th September 1987 in Miscellaneous Appeal No. 27 of 1984 whereby Liladhar Rao was given full right to recover rents and profits of the village. The appeal is devoid of substance. Nor is there any force in the revision petition. Mishrilal was appointed the lambardar in 1941 and he could well be substituted as plaintiff as he had purchased the property through the insolvency Court and thus become the proprietor in 1940. Both the appeal and revision petition are dismissed with costs. Counsel's fees in appeal Rs. 30 and in revision Rs. 15.