AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
This is a suit to enforce acceptance of a putrah, and the only question raised before us in second appeal is as to the liability to pay water rate to
Government under Act VIII of 1865. The water was supplied at the request of the tenant, but the landlord has been allowed a share of the wet
crop for the fusli in question. Under these circumstances, although the water was supplied at the request of the tenant; yet, as the landlord has been
allowed half of the produce raised with the water, we think he ought to bear his proportion of the water rate on the principle of qui commodum
sentit sentire debet et onus, or hi other words, that the benefit and the burden should go together.
We, therefore, allow the appeal, and direct that the patta shall provide that the tenant shall be liable for half the water rate, the landlord being
liable for the other half. The appeal is allowed with costs.