Skip to content


Bishambhar Nath Vs. Bhullo and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectTenancy;Civil
CourtAllahabad
Decided On
Judge
Reported in(1912)ILR34All98
AppellantBishambhar Nath
RespondentBhullo and ors.
Excerpt:
act (local) no. ii of 1901 (agra tenancy act), section 194 - lambardar--suit by lambardar against co-sharers for excess of profits due to other co-sharers and himself--lambardar not agent of co-sharers. - cantonments act[c.a. no. 41/2006]. section 346 & cantonment fund (servants rules, 1937, rules 13, 14 & 15: [h.l. gokhale, ag. cj, p.v. hardas, naresh h. patil, r.m. borde & r.m. savant, jj] jurisdiction of school tribunal constituted under maharashtra employees of private schools (conditions of service) regulations act, (3 of 1978) held, school run by the cantonment board is a primary school and it is not a school recognised by any such board comparable to the divisional board or the state board. the school tribunal constituted under section 8 of the maharashtra act cannot entertain..........represents himself as lambardar of an entire mahal and is the owner of one half of it. he sues the defendants for profits, and his allegation is that the defendants hold land sir and khudkosht in excess of what they are entitled to with reference to the shares owned by them. the revenue court of first instance gave the plaintiff a decree as prayed for. on appeal, the district judge held that the plaintiff could only sue as a co-sharer for the amount of his own share and could not sue for profits due to other co-sharers. he therefore set aside the decree of the court of first instance and remanded the suit for further trial, in appeal before us it is contended that the view taken by the learned judge is in error and that the plaintiff as lambardar can maintain the suit to recover his.....
Judgment:

George Knox and Griffin, JJ.

1. The suit out of which this appeal arises is a suit brought by one Babu Bishambhar Nath who represents himself as lambardar of an entire mahal and is the owner of one half of it. He sues the defendants for profits, and his allegation is that the defendants hold land sir and khudkosht in excess of what they are entitled to with reference to the shares owned by them. The Revenue Court of first instance gave the plaintiff a decree as prayed for. On appeal, the District Judge held that the plaintiff could only sue as a co-sharer for the amount of his own share and could not sue for profits due to other co-sharers. He therefore set aside the decree of the court of first instance and remanded the suit for further trial, In appeal before us it is contended that the view taken by the learned Judge is in error and that the plaintiff as lambardar can maintain the suit to recover his share and the shares of other co-sharers out of excess money realized by the defendants, and this contention is said to be based upon the words contained in Section 194 of the Local Act No. II of 1901. It is urged before us that the lambardar must be deemed to be an agent appointed by the co-sharers to act on behalf of them all. We know of no authority derived from either statute or custom which confers such a power upon the lambardar, and we do not think that the words contained in Section 194 can be Btrained into holding this meaning. The appeal is dismissed with costs.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //