GOBARDHAN Vs. PADAM SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This second appeal arises out of a suit brought by one Padam Singh against one Gobardhan. Padam Singh sued to recover Rs. 224-14 0 on account of the arrears of rent said to be due from one Gobardhan. In the plaint he alleges that he and certain other persons held khudkasht land and that the khudkasht land in dispute has fallen to his lot under private partition and that he alone receives rent from the defendant. The defendant starts in his written statement by refusing to admit everything stated in the plaint; then goes on to say that he is the sub- tenant from all the co-sharers in whose name the khudkasht is recorded in the papers of the Patwari, that he has always paid rent to Ram Chander and did pay the rent of the years in dispute to the said Ram Chander and that nothing is due from him. There is also a question as to the amount of rent due. The Court of first instance held that Padam Singh was not entitled to claim the whole of the rent but only entitled to collect Rs. 39 and gave him a decree for Rs. 80 out of the total amount claimed.

(2.) Both parties, I am told, went in appeal to the District Judge of Agra. The appeal before me arises from the appeal presented in that Court by Thakur Padam Singh. In appeal it was contended that the lower Court has erred in holding that Ram Chander has been collecting rent of Rs. 35 from the defendant or was entitled to collect it, that it has been sufficiently proved that the plaintiff is entitled to collect the rent in dispute from the defendant and that the judgment of the lower Court is against the weight of evidence and probabilities of the case.

(3.) The District Judge started by setting out as his first issue, whether the plaintiff Thakur Padam Singh is entitled to sue the defendant for rent without joining the other co-sharers. He says that in the present case the present representatives of the other two sons of Gobind Singh, with the exception of Ram Chander, have appeared as witnesses and have deposed that a private partition has taken place and that in accordance with that private partition the land held by the defendant Gobardhan has come into Thakur Padam Singh s share. He further points out that Har Chand and Ramji Lal have appeared and given evidence relating to the partition and have admitted Padam Singh s separate title to the lands held by Gobardhan. Upon this he holds that Thakur Padam Singh is alone entitled to collect the rent from the defendant Gobardhan. He, therefore, modifies the decree of the Court below and gives the plaintiff a decree for the rent of the whole holding.