1. This is an appeal by the defendant and arises out of a suit for profits, instituted on 29th July 1927, that is nearly a month after the last day of the agricultural year, 1333 Fasli. The claim was for profits for the years 1331-1333 Fasli. The plaintiff-respondents also instituted a separate suit for the year 1334 F. The defendant had collected Rs. 800 five days before the institution of the present suit (for 1331-1333). It is not disputed that this sum represented part of the rental payable for the year 1333 F. The actual collection was, however, made after the expiry of the year 1333 F. The plaintiffs could have included this sum in their claim for 1334 F., for which a separate suit was instituted by him. Both the suits were decreed for certain amounts.
2. One of the questions argued in appeal before me relates to the plaintiffs' right to a decree for profits in respect of the aforesaid sum of Rs. 800. The learned advocate for the defendant-appellant has contended that no decree should have been passed in this suit in respect of the plaintiffs' share of Rs. 800, which should be considered as a realization made in 1334 F. The decree in the suit for profits for 1334 F. became final; and if the appellant's contention prevails, it will not be possible for the plaintiff to obtain her share of the sum of Rs. 800 in the other suit. Apart from this, in my opinion, there is no fatal defect in the frame of the suit for 1331-33 P. so far as the plaintiffs' claim to a share of Rs. 800 is concerned. As a matter of practice, suits are instituted and decreed in respect of collections made in a certain year for that year and the years preceding. There is, however, nothing in law to prevent a co-sharer from claiming his share of the profits for a certain year collected in that year and after its expiry. No authority has been referred to in support of the contention that the plaintiffs' share of Rs. 800 could not have been decreed in the suit for 1331-33 P. The contention has no force, and I overrule it.
3. Another argument, pressed in appeal, is that revenue paid for 1331 P. and Kharif of 1332 P. has not been deducted in ascertaining the net divisible profits. It is admitted that this is so. The reason why no allowance was made for revenue for those years is said to be that the defendant-appellant did not pay any revenue for those years. As a matter of fact, the defendant has recently purchased the village from its former proprietors, who must have paid revenue for those years before the sale. That payment must have been taken into account in settlement of the price paid by her. In any case, the plaintiff is entitled to a share of profits left after payment of Government revenue and other charges. It is not suggested that Government, remitted the revenue for the years 1331 and Kharif 1332 P. It is in the highest degree improbable that the Government left the revenue uncollected. It is safe to accept the defendant's allegation that her vendors had paid the revenue. This being so, the plaintiffs cannot have the accounts made up on the supposition that no revenue for 1331 and Kharif 1332 P. was at all paid. The decree passed by the Courts below should now be modified in that respect. The revenue for each year is Rs. 162-11-8. Therefore the revenue for 1331 and Kharif of 1332 Pasli is Rs. 244-1-6 The share payable by the plaintiff' comes to Eupees 136-6-10.
4. The result is that the decree appealed from is modified. The amount decreed shall be reduced by Rupees 136-6-10, Parties shall receive and pay costs in proportion to success and failure.