R C DEB Vs. LACHHMI PROSAD SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant and the principal respondents are cosharers of village Kurdanrup in the District of Gaya. The share of the former is eight annas and that of the latter five annas five pies. The remaining share belongs to the third parties with which we are not concerned in the present case. The appellant instituted a rent suit framed under Section 148-A, Ben. Ten. Act, against the pro forma respondents making the principal respondents, their cosharers, defendants and obtained a rent decree. Two similar suits were later on instituted by the principal respondents in respect of their share of rent of the same holding and for the same year against the two pro forma respondents separately, the holding having been split up into two.

(2.) These two suits also purported to have been framed under Section 148-A, Ben. Ten. Act. The appellant was also made pro forma defendant in those two suits. These two suits were also decreed. The appellant executed his decree and brought the Holding to sale. The principal respondents claimed that the sale proceeds should be rateably distributed between them and the appellant in proportion to their respective decrees. This has been allowed by both the Courts below. The learned Munsif held that though the decrees obtained bythe principal respondents were not rent decrees. Section 169, Ben. Ten. Act, was wide enough to allow the rateable distribution. This order was upheld by the lower appellate-Court though on different ground. The learned Subordinate Judge held that the decrees obtained by the principal respondents were rent decrees. The appellant has preferred this second appeal.

(3.) It has been contended on behalf of the appellant that the learned Subordinate Judge was wrong in holding that the decrees of the principal respondents were rent decrees as there cannot be more than one rent decree for the same period in- respect of the same holding in favour of different sets of cosharer landlords. The appellant having already obtained a rent decree for the period in question, the principal respondents could not get a second rent decree for the same period in respect of the same holding. It was also contended that the view taken by the learned Munsif having held the principal respondents decrees to be money decrees, was wrong in applying Section 169, Ben. Ten. Act. In my opinion though both the contentions of the appellant are well founded and the Courts below are in error, the order of rateable distribution is correct. Section 148-A contemplates one and only one rent suit in respect of a holding for a particular period.