KAPILNATH BALDEO Vs. RAMNIHALSAO ARJUN PRASAD SAO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a plaintiff's appeal. The plaintiff is a 0-4-0 co-sharer malguzar. He sues the lambardar of the village for village profits for the years 1987-88, 1988 89 and 1939-40. We are concerned in appeal with only 4 items.

(2.) THE first point in appeal centres round an amount of us. 106-80 which the first Court decreed but the lower appellate Court disallowed. This figure is arrived at as follows.

(3.) I am clear that the lower appellate Court is wrong. The lambardar is an agent of the proprietary body and has a fiduciary character as regards them despite the fact that be is also one of the co-sharers. No agent can make a profit out of the property of his principal even if he is a cosharer himself. The cosharers are, therefore, entitled to claim their share of the profit made by the lambardar in this transaction The trial Court is accordingly right and the decree of the lower appellate Court on this point is reversed and that of the first Court restored.