Parbati vs Niadar

John Edge, Kt., C.J. and Burkitt, J.—This was a suit for rent of an agricultural holding brought under Act No. XII of 1881 by one of two co-sharers in a mahal against a tenant. The two co-sharers are the widows of the late Baldeo Sahai, who was sole owner of the mahal. The tenant pleaded payment to the widow, who is not a party to this suit. The first Court decreed the claim. The District Judge dismissed the suit in appeal. The plaintiff, Musammat Parbati, has brought this appeal. There was at the settlement so far as the evidence on the record goes, no arrangement made by the Settlement Officer, or agreed to by the co-sharers, as to the manner in which lambardars or co-sharers in this mahal were to collect from the cultivators, and consequently there is no record in the settlement of any such arrangement; possibly for the reason that there was then no necessity for any such arrangement, there being then one sole proprietor of the mahal. The Collector of the district by an order of the 7th of May 1892, appointed Musammat Parbati, one of the co-sharers, to be lambardar of the mahal, and, as we are told, directed that the tenants should pay their rents to Musammat Parbati as lambardar. What power in law the Collector had in this particular case to direct that the rents should be paid to a lambardar whom he appointed to an office created by himself and not created at the settlement or by arrangement between the co-sharers, we fail to see. We were referred to a decision in Ganga Sahai v. Ganga Bakhsh Weekly Notes, 1893, p. 3. That case is not in point. There at the settlement the office of lambardar was created and the lambardar was the person to receive the rents, and in the wajib-ul-arz it was stated that the lambardar collected the rents. It was contended here on behalf of the respondent that any co-sharer has authority to receive the whole of the rent payable by a tenant, and is only liable to account therefore to the co-sharers. That is a proposition too general to meet with our acceptance. If that general proposition were correct, it would be difficult to understand the object of Section 106 of Act No. of 1881. No doubt it may be recorded u/s 65 of Act No. XIX of 1873, at the settlement that each co-sharer may receive rent from the tenants, or there may be a local custom or special contract to that effect. Here there is neither local custom nor special contract, nor a record u/s 65 of Act No. XIX of 1873. We are, in this particular case, unable to say that the Court below was wrong in holding that the receipt given by Musammat Sundar, one of the two co-sharers, was a valid receipt and discharge for the rent due. We dismiss this appeal with costs.