1. This second appeal arises out of a suit in which the plaintiff claimed in his capacity as lambardar sums alleged to have been paid by him as Government Revenue on behalf of the defendants, his co-sharers in the mahal. It has been found that the revenue paid was Rs. 1,743 and that the lambardar collected a sum of Rs. 2,079-1-2 on account of profits. The lambardar alleged that there was an agreement between him and the co-sharers by which they were all to collect their own share of the profits. But the learned Judge of the lower appellate Court has found as a fact that the lambardar did not act upon the agreement and that he collected rents, instituted suits, ejected tenants and generally behaved as though no agreement had taken place. The position then is that the lambardar was collecting rents on behalf of the co-sharers as well as for himself.
2. It has been urged that he was entitled out of his collections to set apart for himself his full share of the gross profits of the mahal and that it was only the balance which was to be shared between the co-sharers and consequently that the lambardar must be held to have paid out of his own share of the profits certain sums on account of the revenue due from the co-sharers. There is no force in this argument. The position simply is that the lambardar was collecting rents arid paying the revenue. He collected more profits than the amount of revenue which he had to pay. It is obvious that he cannot give himself preferential treatment. Out of the sum. he collected he was bound to pay the revenue and the balance was to be distributed among all the persons who were entitled to shares, i.e., the lambardar himself and the other co-sharers.
3. An argument has been addressed to me in respect of one co-sharer, the allegation being that he became a co-sharer only in the year 1337 Fasli. The suit was in respect of the cesses for the year 1336 Fasli and revenue and cesses for the year 1337 to 1339 Faslis. It appears that the lambardar collected a sum of about Rs. 263 on account of arrears for years previous to 1337 Fasli. It is said that in so far as this particular co-sharer is concerned, he is not entitled to any share of these arrears and consequently that he at least is bound to pay back some of the revenue paid on his behalf. In the first place, even if the sum of Rs. 263 is deducted from the profits it still appears that there was more in the hands of the lambardar than was necessary for the payment of revenue. In the second place, this particular co-sharer acquired his title from the deceased husband of the other defendant and consequently the defendants between them are entitled to a full share of profits of 2/3rds of the mahal, the remaining l/3rd going to the lambardar. There is no force in this appeal and I dismiss it with costs.