CHEDI LAL Vs. MTINSAR BEGAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a second appeal by a plaintiff whose suit has been dismissed by both the lower Courts. The plaintiff claimed Rs. 157 damages from the defendant. The facts are simple. The plaintiff had a decree against the defendant and in execution of the decree he brought to sale some zamindari shares of the defendant. The auction sale took place on 21 May 1925, and the plaintiff purchased the shares and the sale was confirmed in favour of the plaintiff on 24 June 1929. Subsequent to that date on 25 July 1929, the plaintiff paid Rs. 128-5-0 as the revenue due for the current rabi kist of 1336 F. It is true that the revenue fell due on 15 May 1929, but the period of the rabi of 1336 P. extended up to 30 June 1929. The case for the plaintiff is based on the provisions of Secs.69 and 70, Contract Act. Section 69 lays down that a person who is interested in the payment of money which another is bound by law to pay and who therefore pays it, is entitled to be reimbursed by the other; and Section 70 relates to the case of a person doing a non-gratuitous act for the benefit of another. Both these sections involve the supposition that on the date of payment, 25 July 1929, the defendant was bound to pay the land revenue.

(2.) Learned Counsel has failed to establish that point from a consideration of Chap. 8, Land Revenue Act, 3 of 1901. He relied for his proposition on an old ruling reported in Kishan Lal V/s. Megh Singh (1901) A.W.N. 37. That case was under the former Land Revenue Act, 19 of 1873. The case was somewhat complicated as the former proprietors had lost their property owing to default in paying revenue and the property had been taken under the management of the Collector and during this period it was sold in execution of a Civil Court decree and purchased by the plaintiff. The plaintiff was forced to pay the arrears for three years revenue which had become due from the previous proprietors before his auction-sale. The case then differed from the present one as the date of the auction-sale in the present case was during the period for which the land revenue in question accrued, but in the ruling the land revenue had accrued for three previous years. Moreover the language in the former Act, 19 of 1873, was materially different, Section 146, provided: In the case of every mabal the entire mahal and all the proprietors jointly and severally shall be responsible to Government for the revenue for the time being assessed on the mahal.

(3.) Now, this section has been altered in the Land Revenue Act, 3 of 1901 and is as follows Section 142: All the proprietors of a mahal are jointly and severally responsible to Government for the revenue for the time being assessed thereon, and all persons succeeding to proprietary possession therein, otherwise than by purchase under Section 160 shall be responsible for all arrowsof revenue due at the time of their succession. Explanation - "Proprietor" in this chapter means a person in proprietary possession for his own benefit, and includes a mortgagee and a lessee of proprietary rights.