Skip to content


Bhagwant Singh Vs. Nara1n Singh and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectProperty
CourtAllahabad
Decided On
Judge
Reported in3Ind.Cas.538
AppellantBhagwant Singh
RespondentNara1n Singh and ors.
Excerpt:
n.w.p. and oudh land revenue act (iii of 1901, local), sections 76, 77 - contract as to payment of revenue between superior and inferior proprietor effect of, beyond the term of the current settlement--enhancement of revenue. - - in the agreement it was distinctly provided that even if the revenue was enhanced the subordinate proprietors would be liable to pay to the superior proprietors rs. on the contrary the fact that it was enforced and carried out at subsequent settlements clearly shows that the intention was that agreement was to have effect even after the expiry of the term of the current settlement......rs. 22 a year and no more. the court of first instance made the decree at the rate of rs. 22 a year. this decree was reversed by the lower appellate court but has been restored by the learned judge of this court.2. it is contended that the agreement could not ensure beyond the term of the settlement in the course of which it was entered into. we find nothing in the terms of the agreement to justify this contention. on the contrary the fact that it was enforced and carried out at subsequent settlements clearly shows that the intention was that agreement was to have effect even after the expiry of the term of the current settlement.3. it is now urged that the agreement is void, hut nothing has been shown to us to justify our holding that it is so. this case is similar in every respect.....
Judgment:

1. This is an appeal under the Letters Patent from the judgment of a learned Judge of this Court allowing the appeal of the defendants-respondents and restoring the decree of the Court of first instance. The suit was brought by the plaintiff lambardar against the defendants who are subordinate proprietors for-recovery of arrears of revenue for three years at the rate. of Its. 48 a year. The defence was that under an agreement entered into between the predecessors in title of the parties on the 16th of April, 1859, they were liable to pay only Rs. 22 a year, 'whatever the amount of the revenue might be. In the agreement it was distinctly provided that even if the revenue was enhanced the subordinate proprietors would be liable to pay to the superior proprietors Rs. 22 a year and no more. The Court of first instance made the decree at the rate of Rs. 22 a year. This decree was reversed by the lower appellate Court but has been restored by the learned Judge of this Court.

2. It is contended that the agreement could not ensure beyond the term of the settlement in the course of which it was entered into. We find nothing in the terms of the agreement to justify this contention. On the contrary the fact that it was enforced and carried out at subsequent settlements clearly shows that the intention was that agreement was to have effect even after the expiry of the term of the current settlement.

3. It is now urged that the agreement is void, hut nothing has been shown to us to justify our holding that it is so. This case is similar in every respect to the case of Naubat Singh v. Narain Singh 4 A.L.J. 807 which related to the same village. We dismiss the appeal with costs.


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