MT. BARIBAHU Vs. GANESHSINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE question referred to the Bench is: Whether a-co-proprietor of a village selling his share to a third party and becoming an occupancy tenant of sir held in severally becomes a tenant of the vendee or of the whole proprietary body, liable to pay rent to the vendee or to the lambardar?

(2.) THE material facts are as follows. Mt. Bari Bahu the defendant was an eight annas co-sharer in Mouza Gamhiria Puranapani. The other eight annas share is owned by Ganeshsingh the plaintiff and two others. Ganeshsingh is the lambardar. In 1923 Mt. Bari Bahu sold her share to one Mohansingh and became occupancy tenant of the sir held by her in severalty. Ganeshsingh sues to recover the rent of the holding from Mt. Bari Bahu. The latter pleads that Mohansingh is her landlord and that she has paid the rent to him.

(3.) MOHANSINGH as the landlord has the right to claim the rent from Bari Bahu. It is contended that Sub-clause (a) and (c) of Clause (2) of Section 188, Land Revenue Act 1917 make the lambardar the landlord within the meaning of the Central Provinces Tenancy Act 1918 and give him the right to collect the rent from all tenants in the village. The Act makes the lambardar the landlord only in respect of such land as the body of proprietors whom he represents is the landlord of. The body of proprietors is not the landlord in respect of Bari Bahu's holding and the rent of the holding does not form part of the village profits of which an account is renderable to the body of proprietors. Ganesh singh is therefore, not entitled to claim the rent.