MAHARAJ SINGH Vs. SRI RAJA SURYAPAL SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal has arisen out of a Suit brought by the plaintiff-appellant for recovery from the defendant of the Government revenue of which the plaintiff is the assignee. The Court of first instance, an Honorary Assistant Collector, dismissed it as barred by the provisions of Order 2, Rule 2, Civil P.C. The lower appellate Court decreed the claim with interest disagreeing with the first Court ar regards the plea of bar created by Order 2, Rule 2, Civil P.C. The defendant has preferred this second appeal which raises two questions viz., (1) whether the, suit is barred by Order 2, Rule 2, Civil P.C. as held by the Court of first instance and (2) whether the plaintiff-respondent is entitled to interest on arrears of revenue.

(2.) It appears that the Government revenue of the village has been assigned to a class of persons who collect it from the landholders liable to pay the same. Manohar Lal is an assignee to the extent of eight shares in patti No. 6. Similarly Venkateshwar is entitled to four shares. Plaintiff is the mortgagee of both the aforesaid persons and entitled in that capacity to collect the revenue of their respective shares. Plaintiff brought a suit for recovery of revenue due in respect of the four shares belonging to Venkateshwar and subsequently brought the suit giving rise to the present appeal for recovery of revenue due in respect of the eight shares belonging to Manohar Lal. The view taken by the learned District Judge is so manifestly correct that I do not propose to deal with the question at any length. The plaintiff has a separate cause of action for each of the two suits, claiming, as he does under two different titles, reliefs in respect of two distinct properties. If Manohar Lal and Venkateshwar had brought separate suits no question as to relinquishment under Order 2, Rule 2, Civil P.C., could arise. It cannot likewise arise if their mortgagee who happens to be the same person brings such suits. This ground of appeal must, therefore fail.

(3.) On the second question the appeal must succeed. The learned District Judge concedes that no interest is payable under Section 161, Tenancy Act 2 of 1901. The right to interest depends on contract express or implied or on some rule of law allowing it; Kalyan Das V/s. Maqbul Ahmad A.I.R. 1918 P.C. 53. Section 143, Land Revenue Act, declares that no interest is to be paid to the Government on arrears of revenue. The assignee of the Government revenue is in no better position: see Chandi Prasad V/s. Mahendra Singh [1900] 23 All. 23 All. 5. It is a debatable question whether an interest by way of damages can be awarded to an assignee of the Government revenue. It is not necessary to decide this question as it was not raised in the lower Court and I have not been asked to award interest as damages. The claim to interest is based on the ground that in a previous suit between the parties relating to the eight shares in respect of which revenue is now claimed, interest had been claimed and an ex-parte decree was passed. The liability of the defendant to pay interest is said to be res judicata. The learned District Judge has upheld the plea of res judicata and decreed interest.