SARDAR SINGH Vs. MTBAL KUER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This second appeal arises out of a suit for arrears of rent brought by the plaintiffs-appellants against the defendants in respect of the years 1328, 1329 and part of 1330 F. The following facts were established. The plaintiffs are four of the co-sharers of the mahal in which the holding in suit is situated. There are several other such co-sharers, and they include three persons who are lambardars, namely, Ajaib Singh, etc. For the three years preceding the years in suit the present plaintiffs brought a suit against the present defendants, and obtained a decree for arrears of rent. There is no evidence on the file to show that the plaintiffs alone out of the body of the co-sharers were entitled to collect the whole rent of the holding, nor is there any evidence to show that there is any custom or agreement whereby the lambardars collected rents or whereby by different co- sharers collected the whole rent in respect of separate holdings. The defence in this suit was that the lambardars Ajaib Singh, etc., have all along been collecting in respect of the patti in which the fields in question are situated and that the rent for the years in suit was paid to them by the defendants in good faith.

(2.) The first Court came to a finding that in spite of there being no evidence to show that the plaintiffs alone were entitled to collect the rent of this holding, apart from the previous suit in respect of the years 1325, 1326 and 1327 F., still the effect of this suit was to furnish conclusive proof that the plaintiffs were entitled to collect the whole rent of this holding. It held that the payment of rent to the lambardars by the defendants was not proved, and that even if it were proved, such payment could not in the circumstances be deemed to be payment in good faith.

(3.) In appeal the District Judge held that the payment of rent to the lambardars during the years in suit must be held proved by the admission of these lambardars that they had received the rent, because such admission was against their interest. He further held that the lambardars were prima facie entitled to collect the rent of the holding, and that the previous decree in respect of the arrears for the three years preceding the years in suit would not rebut the prima facie inference that the lambardars were entitled to receive the rent.