DIGAMBAR SINGH Vs. BIRENDRA SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These five connected appeals arise out of suits for profits. The first group of suits relating to appeals 795, 681 and 796, were decreed against the principal contesting defendant, Digambar Singh, under Section 165 as a co-sharer. The other two suits relating to appeals 793 and 794 were decreed against the same defendant as a lambardar, under Section 164, Tenancy Act of 1901.

(2.) One ground of appeal is common in all the cases. It is argued that the plaintiff is a member of a Hindu joint family consisting of himself and the defendants and that under the rule of Hindu Law a member of a Hindu joint family cannot; sue the manager for his share of profits. It has been held by the civil Court in a partition suit, which was decided after the decision of the appeal by the Court below, that the parties are members of a joint family. We need not consider the effect of this decision on this point since in our opinion it is immaterial on the point at issue. The rule of Hindu Law cannot be contested, but it has been held that in a suit by a co-sharer for profits under the Tenancy Act he can obtain his share of profits, if he is recorded as entitled to a separate share, notwithstanding the fact that he may be a member of a joint family with the defendants.

(3.) The learned advocate for the appellant relies upon a ruling in Chandi Prasad v. Jawala Prasad [1899] A.W.N. 206. This ruling no doubt does support his contention, but it is a very old ruling based upon the provisions of the Tenancy Act of 1881, and so far as we have been able to ascertain it has never been followed in any reported decision. It has once been referred to in the case of Sohbat Kuar V/s. Raj Devi A.I.R. 1924 Oudh 118 but in that case it was not followed. In our opinion it can no longer be taken as a good authority.