Skip to content


Naubat Singh and ors. Vs. Jai Ram Singh and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectTenancy
CourtAllahabad
Decided On
Reported inAIR1927All724
AppellantNaubat Singh and ors.
RespondentJai Ram Singh and ors.
Excerpt:
- - in a case like the present it is impossible to bring separate suits because there is no separate assessment of rent as stated by the lower appellate court in his judgment......opinion, the learned judge is mistaken in thinking that the suit is brought for recovery of different rents of two different holdings. the engagement was a joint one. on 7th february 1912, jairam singh mortgaged his property to the defendant bihari, and received from bihari a lease for the cultivation of the sir and khudkasht land. subsequently jairam singh's equity of redemption was sold and purchased by the plaintiffs, who paid off bihari. the plaintiffs have thereupon sued on the basis of the lease of 7th february 1912. there was only one agreement for the payment of rent, and that agreement can be enforced by a single suit, though the agreement may have included sir and khudkasht land of different periods of time, in the case of jagan nath prasad v. tori [1906] 29 all. 18 it was.....
Judgment:

Dalal, J.

1. The plaintiffs suit for recovery of arrears of rent from Jairam Singh has been dismissed by the lower appellate Court on the ground that a joint suit for two holdings cannot lie. In my opinion, the learned Judge is mistaken in thinking that the suit is brought for recovery of different rents of two different holdings. The engagement was a joint one. On 7th February 1912, Jairam Singh mortgaged his property to the defendant Bihari, and received from Bihari a lease for the cultivation of the sir and khudkasht land. Subsequently Jairam Singh's equity of redemption was sold and purchased by the plaintiffs, who paid off Bihari. The plaintiffs have thereupon sued on the basis of the lease of 7th February 1912. There was only one agreement for the payment of rent, and that agreement can be enforced by a single suit, though the agreement may have included sir and khudkasht land of different periods of time, In the case of Jagan Nath Prasad v. Tori [1906] 29 All. 18 it was held that one suit should not be brought in respect of rents due for several holdings. In that case 'holding' meant an area of land separately assessed to rent. Their Lordships were careful enough to point out that the plaintiffs made a statement in the Court of first instance that the defendants held the whole of the land under a single lease, and that allegation had been found to be untrue. If that allegation had been true, a: single suit by Jagan Nath Prasad would have been tenable. In the present case there is a single lease, and the rent secured by that lease may be recovered by a single suit. In a case like the present it is impossible to bring separate suits because there is no separate assessment of rent as stated by the lower appellate Court in his judgment. According to facts stated by that Court on 7th February 1912:

Jairam Sing also executed a kabuliyat securing a rent of Rs. 88 for both khatas without distinguishing separate rents for each of them.

2. I set aside the decrees of the two subordinate Courts and decree the plaintiffs' suit with costs of all Courts against respondent 1, Jairam Singh.


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