1. There was a decree against the defendant, who is appellant here, as a result of which the property was put up for sale, and on the 20th February, 1919, the plaintiff purchased it. He did not get possession till sometime in June, 1919. The defendant made certain collections on account of the Rabi of 1919. The plaintiff, therefore, was entitled to be recouped something by the defendant, and the only difficulty that has arisen in this case has been on what basis he was entitled to recover.
2. The plaintiff having purchased the property on the 20th February, 1919, and the Rabi rent falling due on the 1st May, 1919, by Section 36 of the Transfer of Property Act 'all rents...upon the transfer of the interest of the person entitled to receive such payment be deemed, as between the transferor and transferee, to accrue due from day to day and to be apportionable accordingly, but to be payable on the days appointed for the payment thereof'. The Kharif and Rabi payments were due in a proportion of 10-annas in the rupee on the 1st December and 6-annas for the Rabi on the 1st May in each year. The amount, then, the plaintiff would be entitled to receive would vary according as the divisible unit be taken to be the whole rent for the whole year or the Rabi portion of the rent for the Rabi season of the year. The case first came before a Single Judge of this Court, who, the point being arguable and without authority upon it, referred it to a Division Bench, as it was a case which must arise again frequently in the future and govern important interests. The question has been argued afresh before us, and we are still without the assistance of any authority upon the point. We have, therefore, merely to determine which, in view of Section 36 and the general circumstances of such a case, is the most appropriate method of dividing the rights and liabilities.
3. It is at the outset clear that there is a sharp and easily determined demarcation between the proportions of rent paid for the various seasons, at any rate in the present case. About this there can by no dispute. The rent was divisible into 10 annas and 6-annas, and no tenant could claim that his payment of the 10 annas should be postponed until such period as the whole 18 annas might be due.
4. Similarly, the periods of the year into the Kharif and Rabi seasons are sharply demarcated by the fixed dates on which payments for these respective seasons are to be made. There is, therefore, no difficulty, whatever, in determining the rights and liabilities on the basis of the Rabi season and the Rabi rent.
5. If, on the 30th of November or the 1st of December, a tenant had paid up his full 10 annas for the Kharif, what could be the rent which was gradually accumulating against him from day to day? It can surely only be the daily proportion of the Rabi rent. This is exactly the term which is used in Section 36 of the Transfer of Property Act, which lays down as the basis the rent daily accruing.
6. That this 13 the correct view finds support if the question is regarded from another aspect which we may illustrate by an example. If the rent accruing from day to day is to be held to be the daily proportion of the total annual rent, and the total annual rent is Rs. 160, the rent accruing from day to day is Rs. 160/365. The Kharif season (May to November) is 214 days, and on the annual basis the rent accrued during the Kharif period would be Rs. 160/365 x 214, approximately Rs. 94, but the tenant has a defined liability to pay 10-annas of the total, i.e., Rs. 100. Similarly, on an annual basis the Rabi liability would be approximately Rs. 66, while on his contract the Rabi liability would be Rs. 60.
7. We are of opinion, therefore, that the rights and liabilities between the plaintiff and the defendant, the transferee and the transferor, should have been determined on the basis of the total Rabi rent and the number of days is the Rabi season, the defendant being given credit for a proportion of the Rabi rent based on the number of days which fall within the period of his lawful possession, and the plaintiff being credited with a share of the Rabi rent based on the number of days between the date of his purchase and the date on which the Rabi rent fell due. In order to avoid a remand or remitting an issue in the case, we have discussed with Counsel for the appellant and for the respondent the figures, and it is agreed that, on the basis already determined by this judgment, the defendant must be held entitled to Rs. 228 of the Rabi rent Rs. 404. The amount of the collections which the defendant had made on account of Rabi prior to the date when the Rabi rent really became payable is Rs. 371. The plaintiff is, therefore, entitled to have from the defendant a sum of Rs. 143, plus interest from the date of his purchase to the date of realisation, from the defendant. Allowing the appeal and setting aside the decrees of the lower Courts we decree accordingly. The appellant will have his costs as already decreed in the trial Court and the lower Appellate Court, and the defendant-appellant here will have his costs of the appeal.