CHAUDHRI JAHANGIRA Vs. SARUP

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal arises out of a suit for arrears of rent brought by the plaintiff- appellant for recovery of rent for the years 1329 to 1331 Fasli. Defendants 1 and 2 are the tenants of the land in respect of which the rent is claimed. The plaintiff is one of three co-sharers of the "mahal" in which the holding in question lies. The suit, as framed, was one for recovery of the whole rent payable by defendants 1 and 2. The plaintiff relied upon an agreement between his co-sharers and himself entitling him (plaintiff) to realize the whole rent from defendants 1 and 2.

(2.) Defendants 1 and 2 contested the plaintiff's right to recover the rent without other co-sharers being joined as co-plaintiff with him. At a later stage the plaintiff impleaded defendants 3 and 4, who are the other co-sharers in the "mahal." The latter stated that they had no concern with the rent in question. In other words, they did not object to the plaintiff recovering the rent in suit. Their statement supports the plaintiff's allegation made in the plaint that there was an arrangement among the co-sharer under which the plaintiff alone was entitled to sue for the whole rent from defendants 1 and 2.

(3.) The Court of first instance decreed the suit; but the lower appellate Court has dismissed it, holding that the plaintiff alone could not sue for recovery of the entire rent and that the period of limitation for a suit for arrears of rent had expired when the other co-sharers were impleaded as defendants. It appears that the suit remained pending for some reason or other, for several years, and when defendants 3 and 4 were made parties the period of limitation for even the last of the years in suit had run out.