Skip to content


Sita Ram and ors. Vs. Kamar UddIn and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectProperty
CourtAllahabad
Decided On
Reported inAIR1934All937; 152Ind.Cas.828
AppellantSita Ram and ors.
RespondentKamar UddIn and ors.
Excerpt:
- - on the other hand, since this grove land is admittedly in one of the pattis in suit and since the contesting defendants have been found by the courts below to be re-corded co-sharers in the said patti, i agree with the lower appellate court that the defendants will not be exempt from liability to pay revenue according to their recorded shares in the patti on the |ground that the grove land is exempt from revenue and that they enjoy the grove in lieu of their share of profits......that they were in exclusive possession of 10 bighas 18 bis was of grove land which was exempt from land revenue and that therefore they were not liable to contribute any portion of the revenue which had been paid by the plaintiff lambardar. the plaintiff appealed and the district judge disagreed with the findings of the trial court and decreed the suit.2. the plea taken before me in this second appeal is that the lower appellate court has erred in finding that the grove land is liable to revenue and in decreeing the suit of the plaintiff. it is a fact that in a sale deed of 16th december 1889, this grove land is described as muafi and it is also a fact that in the kathauni of 1336 f. it is shown as revenue free. the lower appellate court relies on the khewat of 1336 f., in which there is.....
Judgment:

Collister, J.

1. This is an appeal by four defendants arising out of a suit which was brought by a lambardar for recovery of arrears of revenue paid by himself in respect of 1335 and 1336 Fasli. There were many defendants in the case but only defendants 40 to 44, contested the suit. The plaintiff's case was that he is the lambardar, that in his capacity as lambardar he paid the revenue of the two pattis in suit, and that the defendants, being co-sharers in the said two pattis, are liable to reimburse him to the extent of their respective shares. The four contesting defendants pleaded that they were not co-sharers in these two pattis at all, but that they were in exclusive possession of a portion of the property in suit which consists of grove land, and that the said land is exempt from payment of revenue, and accordingly they were not liable to reimburse the plaintiff lambardar. The trial Court found that the contesting defendants were co-sharers in one of these pattis, but that they were in exclusive possession of 10 bighas 18 bis was of grove land which was exempt from land revenue and that therefore they were not liable to contribute any portion of the revenue which had been paid by the plaintiff lambardar. The plaintiff appealed and the District Judge disagreed with the findings of the trial Court and decreed the suit.

2. The plea taken before me in this second appeal is that the lower appellate Court has erred in finding that the grove land is liable to revenue and in decreeing the suit of the plaintiff. It is a fact that in a sale deed of 16th December 1889, this grove land is described as muafi and it is also a fact that in the kathauni of 1336 F. it is shown as revenue free. The lower appellate Court relies on the khewat of 1336 F., in which there is no mention of this land being revenue free. According to Clause (d), Section 32, Land Revenue Act, the khewat is:

A register of all the proprietors in the mahal including the proprietors of specific areas, specifying the nature and the extent of the interest of each.

3. It is not specifically laid down there that when any land is revenue free, there shall be a note to this effect in the khewat; in fact Clause (d) provides that a separate register is to be kept of all persons holding land revenue free specifying the nature and extent of the interest of each. On the other hand, since this grove land is admittedly in one of the pattis in suit and since the contesting defendants have been found by the Courts below to be re-corded co-sharers in the said patti, I agree with the lower appellate Court that the defendants will not be exempt from liability to pay revenue according to their recorded shares in the patti on the |ground that the grove land is exempt from revenue and that they enjoy the grove in lieu of their share of profits. I do not think that there is any force in this appeal and it is accordingly dismissed with costs. A request is made for permission to file a Letters Patent appeal. It is refused.


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