CHAUDHRI UMRAO SINGH Vs. UMRAO SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These are nine connected second appeals which may be disposed of together, as they have been by the lower Appellate Court, the essential facts being the same in each of the nine suits out of which they arise.

(2.) The plaintiffs, Chaudhri Umrao Singh, Risal Singh and Mnmmmat Kisar, together with the first and principal defendant, Chaudhri Shibba Singh, are co- sharers in each of two mahals, one situated in a village called Bahadurpur and the other in a village called Abdullah-pur. Of each of these mahals the defendant Shibba Singh is the lambarlar. In the year 1908 Shibba Singh, in his capacity as lambardar, granted to a number of tenants in both these mahals registered leases for periods of seven years; perhaps this was not the precise period in each case; but the point is not material. Apparently these leases covered a great bulk of the cultivable land in both mahals which was, not already in the hands of occupancy tenants, or held by Shibba Singh himself as his sir or khudkasht. It is an important fact in the case that there was no action taken or objection raised by the plaintiffs in respect of these leases, until the connected suits now before me were instituted in the month of April 1912. In the meantime the -. relations between the plaintiffs and the defendant had become very much strained. In the latter part of the year 1911 the tenants who held the registered leases presented in the Revenue Court a series of applications under Section 95 of the Agra Tenancy Act (Local Act II of 1901), asking for a declaration as to the various matters therein specified, and amongst other things as to the class to which the said tenants belonged and the rent payable in respect of their holdings. It will be convenient in order to explain the position exactly to take one case in detail as a sample of others, and I, therefore, turn to the actual facts of the case out of which Second Appeal No. 869 of 1913 arises. In this case the registered lease granted by Shibba Singh was in favour of a tenant called Umrao Singh. It was dated August the 24th, 1908, and it gave the said tenant the right to hold the fields therein specified for a period of seven years at a rent of Rs. 55 per annum. Umrao Singh s plaint in the Revenue Court was to the effect that there had been an agreement between himself and the lambdrdar Shibba Singh superseding the lease of 1908. He alleged that the terms of this agreement were that, from the commencement of the agricultural year 1319 Fasli, he should pay rent at Rs. 62 per annum instead of Rs. 55; but on the other hand that the term of his lease should be extended so as to run to the end of 1329 Fasli, that is to say, roughly to the month of September 1922 A. D. He admitted that he had no registered lease to this effect and. pleaded that the lambardar was for some reason -declining to have the correct facts regarding his tenancy entered in the village papers. On these grounds he sought a declaration under Section 95 of the Agra Tenancy Act as already explained. When this suit was set down for hearing it was terminated by a compromise filed by the parties, that is to say, by the tenant Umrao Singh and the lambardar Shibba Singh. This compromise is dated September the 9th, 1911. It is to the effect that Shibba Singh has agreed to give Umrao Singh a lease for 11 years from 1319 to 1329 Fasli inclusive and that on the other hand the tenant Umrao Singh has agreed to his rent being enhanced up to the sum of Rs. 69 per annum.

(3.) Now in view of the manner in which the case has been argued before me it is scarcely possible for me to avoid some sort of criticism or discussion of the action taken by the Revenue Court in this matter. It seems to me that the Assistant Collector, before proceeding to give a decree for a declaration in terms of compromise, might have stopped to consider whether the tenant Umrao Singh actually held a lease, registered" within the meaning of the definition of that expression, given in the Tenancy Act itself, so as to give him: a right to classify himself as a tenant holding under an eleven years lease. It seems open to argument also whether under the provisions of Section 47 of the Tenancy Act enhancement of rent had been duly applied for, and whether the Assistant Collector should not have considered this point before proceeding to dispose of the suit before him. As often happens, however, when a suit is compromised, the Court did not look beyond the terms of the compromise itself. It gave the tenant Umrao Singh a decree to the effect that he is the tenant of the lands specified in his application at a rent of Rs. 69 per annum for the period of 1319 to 1329 Fasli inclusive.