BHORE Vs. HABIBUR-RAHMAN KHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiffs, one of whom is a lambardar, Habibur Rahman Khan, sued the defendants under Section 160 Tenancy Act, 1901, for recovery of arrears of revenue paid by them on account of the defendants. The defence was that the defendants were no co-share to whom the provisions of Section 160 would apply and that they were not table to pay any revenue whatsoever, because at the time of the last set learned the liability was fixed on the holders of the khalsa and. The defendants are plot proprietors, that is, they hold specific plots which are assessed to revenue. It appears to have been the opinion of the board of Revenue previously that such proprietors were not included in the term co-sharer "as used in Section 169 and the following sections of the Tenancy Act, 1901. The view, however, has been corrected subsequently after the decision by this Courts in Murli Dhar V/s. Babu Ram [1920] 18 A.L.J. 121; see Umri Kuar V/s. Bijay Bahadur 4 U.D. 358. The revenue Court, therefore, had jurisdiction to try the suit.

(2.) The term of the wajib-ul-arz whose protection the defendants seek may be translated as below: Whatever revenue has been fixed on the part of the Government on haqiyat mustafarriqa (that is, separate plots of lands), the liability for its payment shall lie on the proprietors of the khalsa land.

(3.) This clause does not give an indication that the plot-proprietors were to hold land free of revenue. It is obvious that the Government did not desire to undertake the trouble and responsibility of collecting small amounts from plot- proprietors and made the proprietors of the khalsa land responsible for the payment of the amount. That however, did not absolve the plot proprietors from the liability of paying revenue and of refunding to the owners of khalsa land the amount of revenue paid by them on behalf of the plot-proprietors. If an argument like this based on conditions of the wajib-ul-framed for the convenience of Government were entertained, it may with equal propriety be argued that a lambardar, who is compelled to pay revenue to Government on behalf of all the co-sharers, cannot recover the amount paid by him on behalf of the other co- shares.