PUNJAB SUGAR MILLS CO LTD Vs. LACHHMAN PRASAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a plaintiff's appeal arising out of a suit for accounts and profits under Section 231, U.P. Tenancy Act, 1939. In the plaint the amount claimed was Rs. 4,665 as the plaintiff's share of profits and Rs. 584 interest, total Rs. 5,249. Learned Assistant Col. lector applying the principle laid down in Sub-section (2) of Section 233 for the valuation of khudkasht land and excluding the portion of the claim which according to him was time-barred, held that the plaintiff was entitled to Rs. 435-15-0 only for profits and Rs. 49-0-3 as interest, total Rs. 481-15-3. He decreed the suit for this amount and dismissed it for the remainder. The plaintiff comes in appeal and the following three points have been urged on its behalf : (1) That in the peculiar circumstances of this case Sub-section (2) of Section 232, U.P. Tenancy Act, is not applicable and the plaintiff's share of profits should have been determined on the basis of net yield of the plots in suit. This is the main point. (2) That no part of the claim is time-barred. (3) That so far as the claim related to the period prior to the commencement of the U.P. Tenancy Act, 1939, the provisions of Sub-section (2) of Section 233 thereof are not applicable.

(2.) There are certain undisputed facts which may first be stated. The suit relates to profits in respect of only 78.7 acres of specific plots in village Pohriya in the district of Gorakhpur. No claim for profits in respect of rent collected by the defendants from the tenants or any other land is made. In para. 15 of the plaint the plaintiff alleges as follows: Besides the said lands there is a dispute among the parties in respect of certain other lands also, in respect whereof remedy if necesssary will be sought after- wards. There is an apprehension of accrual of a legal flaw. if a claim in respect of these lands is included in this suit and also there is an apprehension of unnecessary delay, and so the plaintiff files this claim reserving the rights in respect of the said plots.

(3.) It appears that up to the year 1911, the entire village was held by certain Thakurs, who are represented in the present suit by defendants second set and who appear as respondents 6 to 9, Under certain transfers and agreements entered into in 1912 and 1913 the Thakurs parted with their two annas share in this village in favour of certain Tewaris, who are represented in the present suit by the defendants first set and in this appeal by respondents 1 to 5. The Thakurs are thus proprietors of 14 annas share and the Tewaris of two annas share. For facility of reference, defendants second set and first set will be mentioned hereafter as the Thakurs and the Tewaris respectively.