MANMOHAN SINGH Vs. BISHAL SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE parties are co-sharers in four villages, in all of which the plaintiff is Lambardar or Sadar Lambardar, and he sued for the recovery of sums paid by him for the defendant as land-revenue for one of the villages. The defendant alleged that there was an express agreement that from the money due to him for this village should be deducted the money due to him for the others, and if he and the plaintiff are still sane, there can be little doubt that there was such an agreement. In the lower appellate Court, however, it was held "that the agreement was not proved, and the learned Judge went on to say that in the absence of an agreement Section 156 (of the Land Revenue Act) forbids any claim by way of set-off".

(2.) THE section mentioned, says nothing about any agreement; it forbids a set-off in the absence of the permission of the Court, a permission which could not possibly be refused in this case in respect of proper items in any of the four villages. As to the village of Akaltara, for which the original claim is made, a sum of Rs. 82-8-0 has been allowed as lambardari haqq. But the plaintiff is Sadar Lambardar of that village and, as was explained in Anandrao v. Daulat A.I.R. 1926 Nag. 274 a Sadar Lambardar is not entitled to any 'such payment. It is also admitted by the defendant appellant that he is bound to pay the Rs. 8-8-0 disallowed, which the plaintiff had to pay as the costs of excuting a warrant for the recovery of the land-revenue.

(3.) IN the villages of Khond and Dhorla the parties are Superior Proprietors, and the plaintiff as Lambardar recovered Rs. 120 a year as malikana for the two villages. . Of this he has to pay Rs. 60 a year or Rs. 180 for the three years to the defendant.