GAMBHIRYA Vs. SAKHARAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE defendant applicant, Gambhirya, was sued in the Court of the Additional Subordinate Judge No. 2, Nagpur, for rent arrears amounting to Rs. 22-12-0 in respect of his absolute occupancy holding in mouza Degma for the years 1334 and 1335 Fasli. The position of the present defendant in the first Court was a curious one. Apparently the question of the lambardarship of the village was in dispute and his position was that he had recognised one V.N. Datar who had been the agent of the previous lambardar, as the landlord. Admittedly, however, the present plaintiff non-applicant was appointed lambardar on 15-1-1926, but the applicant's position is that he was absolved by the payments made to the said Datar. The Judge of the first Court granted the plaintiff a decree holding that the payment to Datar could not discharge the defendant.

(2.) AN appeal was filed in the Court of the Additional District Judge, who held that Section 50 of the Transfer of Property Act could afford no help to the defendant. The latter had held the land from the previous Mahajan until 16-9-1924, and so long as he was alive there was no question as to who the landlord was.

(3.) IT has been urged on behalf of the applicant in this Court that the case comes within the purview of section Section 50 of the Transfer of Property Act, or that at any rate, the principle laid down therein should be applied. I am wholly unable to accept this proposition. In the first place, the attitude of the defendant as well as his whole position in the first Court was that it lay with him to choose whom he would recognise as the person entitled to receive his rent and that having chosen Datar he was absolved. I find it impossible to believe that at the time he was ignorant as to the pending dispute as to title; so it is impossible, in my opinion, to hold that his action was in good faith, while it is equally obvious that Section 50 of the Transfer of Property Act cannot cover the case because he never in good faith could have held the property as from Datar. Moreover, there was the least excuse for. the applicant in that, if he had entertained any genuine doubt as to whom the payment should be made to, an easy way of escape was provided for him by Section 68 of the C.P. Tenancy Act.