(1.) These are two connected appeals arising out of a suit for settlement of accounts and profits. The plaintiffs and the defendants are co-sharers in Sitalpur. Ajudhia Prasad, Kamta Prasad and Anwar Singh, plaintiff s, instituted a suit in the trial Court against Chattar Singh and Ganga Prasad for profits under the provisions of Section 226, Agra Tenancy Act. Chattar Singh and Ganga Prasad are lambardars in the aforesaid village. The suit was decreed by the trial Court. Against that decree an appeal was preferred to the Court of the learned District Judge, who modified the decree of the trial Court and reduced the amount decreed by a certain sum of money. Both sides have preferred appeals against the decision of the learned District Judge. It may be stated here that the suit which has given rise to the two second appeals before us was tried along with another suit, in which one Banarsi Das was the plaintiff. In the present appeals we are not concerned with that suit. It may, however, be mentioned that the reasons for the decision of the suit before us are recorded by the learned Assistant Collector in his judgment, which he delivered in the case of Benarsi Das and which judgment forms part of the present record. The usual pleas which are generally taken in suits of profits and accounts were taken in the case before us. At this stage, however, it is not necessary to refer to any one of those pleas. The dispute between the parties relates to the profits of a cattle market said to have been started by Chattar Singh, one of the two lambardars of the village.
(2.) The plaintiffs in para. 5 of their plaint stated that a cattle market is held in the village from 1336 Fasli on the grove, which is held jointly by the co-sharers, but the plaintiffs have not been paid the income of their share, and they claim to be entitled to get a share out of the income from this cattle market. The defendant in para. 5 of the written statement stated that about 2i years ago ho had started, with the permission of the Collector, a cattle market on his own grove No. 735 at a considerable cost, and he denied the right of the plaintiffs to get any share in the income of this cattle market. One of the issues framed by the trial Court was whether the plaintiffs were entitled to get a share in the income from the cattle market held in plot No. 735. The learned Assistant Collector did not take into consideration the plea of Chhatar Singh to the effect that he had the right of a grove-holder in plot No. 735. This is a point which should have been considered. If it be found that Chhatar Singh, defendant, has the right of a grove-holder in plot No. 735, then it is not easy to understand on what ground the co-sharers in the village can claim any share in the profits of a cattle market which might be held in that grove. The position of a grove-holder, according to the Agra Tenancy Act, is analogous to that of a tenant. He has every right to make use of the grove, which he holds, in any manner he likes.
(3.) If he starts a cattle market in his grove and derives profits, the co-sharers in the village have no right whatsoever to a share in those profits. The learned Assistant Collector found that the cattle market is held not only on plot No. 735, but also on plot No. 734 and other adjoining fields, but held that there was no evidence before him to show which those plots were. At one place in his judgment the learned Assistant Collector says that: The plaintiff is surely entitled to get his share of the bazaar income derived from the fields other than No. 735 in dispute, even if Chhatar Singh is ultimately adjudged to be the exclusive owner of the whole cattle market income derived from plot No. 735.