Skip to content


Har Dayal Vs. B. Ram Manohar Lal and anr. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectProperty
CourtAllahabad
Decided On
Reported inAIR1940All316
AppellantHar Dayal
RespondentB. Ram Manohar Lal and anr.
Excerpt:
- - the trial court decreed the suit, and its decree has been confirmed by the lower appellate court as well as by the learned single judge of this court......judge of this court. it arises out of a suit brought against him by the plaintiffs respondents to recover arrears of profits for 1339, 1340 and 1341 fasli. the defendant is the lambardar. plaintiff-respondent 1 is a co-sharer, while plaintiff-respondent 2 is his thekadar. the suit was brought for arrears of profits which accrued during the period of the theka. the defendant contended that the suit was time-barred, inasmuch as it had been brought more than one year after the expiry of the period of the theka. the trial court decreed the suit, and its decree has been confirmed by the lower appellate court as well as by the learned single judge of this court. it was contended for the appellant that the suit was time-barred and should have been dismissed. as already stated, plaintiff 1 is a.....
Judgment:

Ganga Nath, J.

1. This is a defendant's appeal against the decision of a learned single Judge of this Court. It arises out of a suit brought against him by the plaintiffs respondents to recover arrears of profits for 1339, 1340 and 1341 Fasli. The defendant is the lambardar. Plaintiff-respondent 1 is a co-sharer, while plaintiff-respondent 2 is his thekadar. The suit was brought for arrears of profits which accrued during the period of the theka. The defendant contended that the suit was time-barred, inasmuch as it had been brought more than one year after the expiry of the period of the theka. The trial Court decreed the suit, and its decree has been confirmed by the lower Appellate Court as well as by the learned single Judge of this Court. It was contended for the appellant that the suit was time-barred and should have been dismissed. As already stated, plaintiff 1 is a cosharer, and plaintiff 2 is his thekadar. Under Section 199, Agra Tenancy Act (No. 3 of 1926),

a thekadar is a farmer or other lessee of proprietary rights in land, and in particular of the right to receive rents or profits.

2. The deed of theka has not been produced. Sec. 202, Agra Tenancy Act, provides for a period of limitation for suits for arrears of profits in respect of the theka area which accrue prior to the commencement of the theka and for arrears which remain due at the expiry of the theka. It lays down:

Except as otherwise provided by the terms of the theka, the lessor shall be, and the thekadar shall not be, entitled to recover arrears of rent and other dues in respect of the theka area which accrued prior to the commencement of the theka, if legal proceedings for their recovery are instituted within one year of the commencement of the theka, and thekadar shall not be entitled to recover any such arrears remaining due at the expiry of his theka, or at the time of his ejectment or surrender of the theka, whichever event first occurs, unless legal proceedings for the recovery of such arrears are commenced within one year of the expiry of the theka or of the thekadar's ejectment or surrender of the theka.

3. According to this Section, a lessor has a right to recover arrears of rent and other dues in respect of the theka area which accrued prior to the commencement of the theka within one year of the commencement of the theka. Similarly, a thekadar has a right to recover any arrears remaining due at the expiry of his theka, provided he brings his suit within one year of the expiry of the theka. The present suit has been brought more than one year after the expiry of the theka, and consequently, as provided by Section 202, his suit is time-barred. As regards the right of the plaintiff 1, he has no right to maintain this suit as he has transferred it to plaintiff 2. Plaintiff 1 has no right to realize any arrears of profits which accrued during the period of the theka. The suit should, therefore, have been dismissed. It is therefore ordered that the appeal be allowed with costs, the decree of the learned single Judge be set aside and the suit be dismissed with costs.


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