SECRETARY OF STATE Vs. MAHASHEY RAM BHAROSEY LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a defendant's appeal and arises out of a suit for recovery of Rs. 30-11- 0 which was paid under protest on behalf of plaintiff-respondent on account of alleged arrears of revenue of certain zamindari property and on account of the process fee for the issue of a warrant for the arrest of plaintiff-respondent and costs of attachment and pound charges of the cattle of the plaintiff-respondent. The facts are not in dispute and are as follows : A 5-biswa zamindari share in village Karanpur was owned by a lady named Mt. Bhoopan Dei. In the year 1927 Bhoopan Dei mortgaged that share to one Jado Earn by means of a deed of usufructuary mortgage. In accordance with the terms of the mortgage deed the mortgagor was not entitled to redeem the mortgage for a period of 7% years. The mortgagee's name was entered in the revenue papers and he entered in possession of the property mortgaged and was in possession during the period for which the revenue was in arrears.

(2.) In the year 1931 the equity of redemption in the 5-biswa share that belonged to Bhoopan Dei was put to sale and purchased by Ram Bharose Lal, plaintiff- respondent, and Ram Bharose's name was entered in the revenue papers as the owner of the equity of redemption. A sum of about Rs. 25 was due on account of land revenue of the 5-biswa share in August 1931 and, for the realization of this amount, the Tahsildar, on 10 August issued a warrant of arrest and Ran Bharose Lal was arrested and detained in prison. Further, under the orders of the Subdivisional Officer the cattle of Ram Bharose Lal were attached and kept in pound. On 10 August the plaintiff sent a notice to the Tahsildar from the look up protesting against his arrest and detention and he sent similar notices on 11th August to higher revenue officials. Kanhaiya Lal, the son of the plaintiff, also applied to the Sub-divisional Officer for the release of his father but the Sub- divisional Officer refused to accede to the application unless the revenue was paid. Kanhaiya Lal communicated this order of the Sub-divisional Officer to the plaintiff in the look up and the plaintiff directed Kanhaiya Lal to pay the amount demanded under protest. Kanhaiya Lal, on 15 August, paid under protest in all a sum of Rs. 30-11-0 to the Sub-divisional Officer and then the plaintiff was released. The protest was contained in a written application that was signed by Kanhaiya Lal and was presented before the Sub-divisional Officer at the time of the payment.

(3.) The suit giving rise to the present appeal was brought by the plaintiff- respondent on the allegation that he was not liable to pay the amount due on account of land revenue and that the amount paid by Kanhaiya Lal was wrongly realized. The defendant, the Secy of State for India in Council, resisted the suit inter alia on the following grounds : (1) that the land-revenue realised was due from Ran Bharose Lal, and (2) that the suit was barred by Section 233(m), Land Revenue Act (Act 3 of 1901). The trial Court gave effect to these pleas and dismissed the suit. But on appeal by the plaintiff, the lower Appellate Court overruled the pleas urged in defence and decreed the plaintiff's claim. The defendant has come up in second appeal to this Court and it is argued on his behalf that the lower Appellate Court was wrong in law in repelling the contentions noted above. In my judgment, the decree of the lower Appellate Court is perfectly correct and ought to be affirmed. It is provided by Section 142, Land Revenue Act that all the proprietors of a mahal are jointly and severally responsible to Government for the revenue for the time being assessed thereon....