NAND KISHORE Vs. RAM SARUP

JUDGEMENT

(1.) There was a decree against the defendant, who is appellant here, as a result of which the property was put up for sale, and on the 20 February 1919, the plaintiff purchased it. He did not get possession till some time in June 1919. The defendant made certain collections on account of the Rabi of 1918. The plaintiff, therefore, was entitled to be recouped something by the defendant, and the only difficulty that has arisen in this case has been on what basis he was entitled to recover. The plaintiff having purchased the property on the 20 February 1919, and the Rabi rent falling due on the 1 May 1919, by Section 36 of the Transfer of Property Act all rents...upon the transfer of the interest of the person entitled to receive such payment be deemed, as between the transferrer and transferee to accrue due from day today and to be apportionable accordingly, but to be payable on the days appointed for the payment thereof.

(2.) The Kharif and Rabi payments were due in a proportion of 10 annas in the rupee on the 1 December and 6 annas for the Rabi on the 1 May in each year. The amount, then, the plaintiff would be entitled to receive would vary according as the divisible unit be taken to be the whole rent for the whole year or the Rabi portion of the rent for the Rabi season of the year. The case first came before a Single Judge of this Court who, the point being arguable and without authority upon it, referred it to a Division Bench, as it was a case which must arise again frequently in the future and govern important interests. The question has been argued afresh before us, and we are still without the assistance of any authority upon the point. We have therefore, merely to determine which, in view of Section 36 and the general circumstances of such a case, is the most appropriate method of dividing the rights and liabilities.

(3.) It is at the outset clear that there is a sharp and easily determined demarcation between the proportions of rent paid for the various seasons at any rate in the present case. About this there can be no dispute. The rent was divisible into 10 annas and 6 annas, and no tenant could claim that his payment of the 10 annas should be postponed until such period as the whole 16 annas might be due. Similarly, the periods of the year into the Kharif and Rabi seasons are sharply demarcated by the fixed dates on which payments for these respective seasons are to be made. There is, therefore, no difficulty, whatever, in determining the rights and liabilities on the basis of the Rabi season and the Rabi rent.