Special Manager, Court of Wards, Muttra vs Lekhraj

Darling S.M.

The recommendation made by the Commissioner of Agra in his reference order dated the 3rd August, 1937, is accepted. These suits u/s 223 of the Tenancy Act by the assignees of revenue should have been brought against all the co-sharers collectively: a collective decree could then have been assed against all, as laid down by the late Board in the case of Imam Bakhsh v. Mst. Saigun-Nissa.1936 RD 45. This decision follows two rulings of the High Court reported in Mehrzia Begam v. Gulzar Singh 1935 RD 256: 1935 A W R 621 and Naipal Singh v. Skinner,1935 RD 577: 1935 A W R 1479 the Former of which is quoted by the Board, namely the case of Mehrzia Begam v. Gulzar Singh.(supra) Under the mistaken idea that the whole of the revenue is recoverable from the Lambardor, the Assignees have sued only the Lambardar: the Assistant Collector has given them a decree in full in five separate suits covering five mahals in village Akola, Three of the decrees were taken in appeal by the Lambardar to the District Judge, who has modified the sums decreed to the personal share of the Lambardar. The two remaining decrees were not appeasable the Lambardar has therefore come in revision to the Commissioner. Now the Commissioner recommends that these two decrees be similarly modified for the share of the revenue payable by the Defendant Lambardar in his individual capacity.

As already remarked these suits should have been brought against all the co-sharers, not merely against the Lambardar a collective decree could then have been passed against all. But as the Defendant Lambardar has no objection to the suits being decreed against him to the extent of his personal share, the decrees will be modified accordingly, as proposed by the Commissioner. The applicant Lambardar will get his costs of these provisional proceedings before the Commissioner including Rs. 5 for pleader''s fees.

Bomford J.M.

I agree.