Skip to content


ChaIn Sukh Vs. Dhanak Singh and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCivil
CourtAllahabad High Court
Decided On
Judge
Reported in(1886)ILR8All61
AppellantChaIn Sukh
RespondentDhanak Singh and ors.
Excerpt:
lambardar and co-sharer - suit by co-sharer for profits--burden of proof--act xii of 1881 (n.-w.p. rent act), section 209. - brodhurst and tyreell, j.1. the burden of proof has been wrongly laid by the appellate court on the lambardar in this case. when a co-sharer claims a dividend on the full rental, and the lambardar pleads in reply that the actual collection fell short of that rental, it is incumbent on the co-sharer to show that the deficient collection was attributable to the conduct of the lambardar in the sense of section 209 of the rent act, before he can succeed in getting a decree for a sum in excess of the actual collections. the court below has ruled erroneously to the contrary effect; and we must modify his decree to this extent.2. the appeal is allowed, with costs in proportion to the amount by which the decree will be thus reduced.
Judgment:

Brodhurst and Tyreell, J.

1. The burden of proof has been wrongly laid by the Appellate Court on the lambardar in this case. When a co-sharer claims a dividend on the full rental, and the lambardar pleads in reply that the actual collection fell short of that rental, it is incumbent on the co-sharer to show that the deficient collection was attributable to the conduct of the lambardar in the sense of Section 209 of the Rent Act, before he can succeed in getting a decree for a sum in excess of the actual collections. The Court below has ruled erroneously to the contrary effect; and we must modify his decree to this extent.

2. The appeal is allowed, with costs in proportion to the amount by which the decree will be thus reduced.


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