Skip to content


Bachan Lal Vs. Musammat Pooran Kunar - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCivil
CourtAllahabad
Decided On
Judge
Reported in1Ind.Cas.529
AppellantBachan Lal
RespondentMusammat Pooran Kunar
Excerpt:
civil procedure code (act v of 1905), section 11 - interest--previous, suit for interest on tent--subsequent suit for interest on rent for a different period--res judicata--tenancy act (ii of 1901), section 101--remission of revenue--thikadar's liability to pay rent for the re-mission period on arrears of rent. - - it is quite true that if the defendant were an ordinary tenant and were sued by the zamindar for rent, the fact that the zamindar had taken the benefit of the government remission of the revenue would be a good defence to the suit......to pay interest at 1 per cent per mensem on all rent in arrear. it has not been suggested that the rent payable by the defendant does not come within the meaning of rent in that section, and accordingly prima facie the defendant was liable to interest. he, however, contends in one of his grounds of appeal that in the previous years he was sued, for rent. in that year the government had remitted 4 annas in the rupee government revenue, and the defendant had pleaded, in that previous litigation: (1) that he was entitled to a remission of proportionate amount in his rent, and (2) that no interest was payable by him on arrears of rent. the court decided that he was entitled to a remission of 4 annas in the rupee in respect of his rent, and also that interest was not payable. the plaintiff.....
Judgment:

Richards, J.

1. This was a suit for arrears of rent on a thika. Under the terms of thika, the thikadar had to pay a sum of Rs. 700 odd to the Government for revenue. He was bound to pay Rs. 200 odd to the plaintiff. The rent was a fixed rent, and tinder the terms of the thika, the thikadar realised the entire rents from the tenants. The only questions argued before me were: (1) was the defendant entitled to have the suit dismissed. The Government remitted the revenue, and the rents of the ordinary tenants had to be remitted by the zamindar as a consequence of the remission of revenue by the Government. The defendant contends that he was unable to realise from the tenants, and he accordingly claims that he should not be called upon to pay the rent reserved by the thika. This was the main point argued in the appeal. (2) The only other point was the question of interest. It is quite true that if the defendant were an ordinary tenant and were sued by the zamindar for rent, the fact that the zamindar had taken the benefit of the Government remission of the revenue would be a good defence to the suit. But the defendant is not in the position of an ordinary tenant. He himself pays the revenue to the Government, and he himself got the benefit of the remission of revenue by the Government. His contract with the plaintiff was to pay a fixed rent over and above the Government revenue The plaintiff got no remission of Government revenue in respect of the land held by the defendant. In fat years the defendant probably makes very substantial profit in my opinion he cannot claim exemption from his rent merely on the ground that the Government remitted the revenue on condition that the zamindar should also remit the tenants' rents. Section 101 of the Agra Tenancy Act provides that a tenant shall be liable to pay interest at 1 per cent per mensem on all rent in arrear. It has not been suggested that the rent payable by the defendant does not come within the meaning of rent in that section, and accordingly prima facie the defendant was liable to interest. He, however, contends in one of his grounds of appeal that in the previous years he was sued, for rent. In that year the Government had remitted 4 annas in the rupee Government revenue, and the defendant had pleaded, in that previous litigation: (1) that he was entitled to a remission of proportionate amount in his rent, and (2) that no interest was payable by him on arrears of rent. The Court decided that he was entitled to a remission of 4 annas in the rupee in respect of his rent, and also that interest was not payable. The plaintiff did not appeal, and the defendant contends that this previous decision operates as res judicata. He relies on the provisions of 8. 11 of Act No. V of 1908 corresponding with Section 13 of Act No. XIV of 1882. In my opinion the principle of res judicata does not apply. The matter directly and substantially in issue in the former suit was the amount of rent payable for the particular period covered by that suit. The remission of Government revenue in that year was not the same as the remission in the present case. The matter did not turn upon the construction of any legal document. I think that it would be extending considerably the doctrine of res judicata to hold that it applies to the circumstances of the present case. I dismiss the appeal with costs including fees on the higher scale.


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