Skip to content


Musammat Fatima Bibi Vs. Musammat Hamida Bibi and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCivil
CourtAllahabad
Decided On
Judge
Reported inAIR1915All118; 28Ind.Cas.587
AppellantMusammat Fatima Bibi
RespondentMusammat Hamida Bibi and ors.
Excerpt:
provincial small cause courts act (ix of 1887) schedule ii, article 41 - decree for arrears of rent against joint tenants, realized from our, tenant only--tenants in possession of separate fields in joint khata--suit for contribution, whether maintainable. - .....to the provincial small cause courts act, as the suit is a suit for contribution by a sharer in joint property in respect of a payment made by him of money due from a co-sharer. it appears that the parties are all related to each other being descendants of the same person, and that they have for convenience' sake allotted to each party a separate field or fields. it is contended that the allotment of fields shows that the property is no longer joint property. i cannot accept this contention. certainly as regards the zemindar all the parties to this suit are jointly liable for the rent. there has been no division of the land between them. i cannot hold that the properly has ceased to be joint property because for the sake of convenience each party cultivates separate fields. it appears.....
Judgment:

Chamier, J.

1. The parties to this suit are tenants of several fields included in one and the same khata and they pay a lump sum as rent to the zemindar for all the fields. The rent having been realized from the plaintiff alone, she has sued the rest of the tenants for contribution. The plaint has been returned by the Judge of the Small Cause Court, on the ground that cognizance of the suit is barred by Article 41 of the second Schedule to the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, as the suit is a suit for contribution by a sharer in joint property in respect of a payment made by him of money due from a co-sharer. It appears that the parties are all related to each other being descendants of the same person, and that they have for convenience' sake allotted to each party a separate field or fields. It is contended that the allotment of fields shows that the property is no longer joint property. I cannot accept this contention. Certainly as regards the zemindar all the parties to this suit are jointly liable for the rent. There has been no division of the land between them. I cannot hold that the properly has ceased to be joint property because for the sake of convenience each party cultivates separate fields. It appears that each party is liable for his share of the rent without regard to the actual area of the field. I hold that the Court below was right in deciding that the cognizance of this suit is barred by Article 41. This application is dismissed with costs.


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