YUDHISTHIR SINGH Vs. ANGAN LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal has arisen from a suit for profits brought by the plaintiff- respondents against the lambardar, the appellant before me. The plaintiffs impleaded another co-sharer, Hazuri Singh, alleging that he also made collections during the years in suit (1333-35 Fasli). The plaintiffs subsequently discharged Hazuri Singh. Later on, the plaintiffs suit was dismissed on the ground that they had failed to implead all the necessary parties. On appeal by the plaintiffs the District Judge remanded the case and directed the lower Court to re-implead Hazuiri Singh. This was done. The trial Court passed a decree in favour of the plaintiffs calculating the amount of profits on the basis of gross rental minus actual collections made by Hazuri Singh. The lambardar appealed to the District Judge, who modified the decree of the trial Court to some extent. The plaintiffs had also filed cross-objections, but they were dismissed.

(2.) In the present second appeal by the lambardar appellant several questions were argued. It was contended that the lower-appellate Court has decreed to the plaintiffs not only their share of the profits for the years 1333 to 1335 Fasli., but also profits payable in previous years but left outstanding during the years in suit and presumably collected in those years. After carefully examining the judgment of the lower appellate Court, I am satisfied that no decree has been passed in favour of the plaintiffs in respect of rents collected for the years preceding 1333 Fasli.

(3.) The next question argued was that the lower appellate Court was not justified in upholding the decree of the first Court so far as it proceeded on gross rental. The trial Court definitely found that the lambardar did not produce any account of his own, and the patwari's "siyaha", on which alone an account for profits could be based, had been incorrectly dictated to the patwari. The trial Court also presumed that the appellant collected the entire rental. The lower appellate Court upheld the findings of the trial Court, and the only variation which it made was in respect of the year 1335 Fasli, for which it allowed a deduction of 15 per cent on the gross rental of that year. If the facts found by the lower appellate Court be accepted, there can be no question of the discretionary power of that Court in decreeing the plaintiffs claim on gross rental. In second appeal I cannot question the findings of the lower appellate Court so far as they are of fact. This being so, the exercise of discretion by the lower appellate Court in awarding profits to the plaintiffs on gross rental cannot be questioned.