Skip to content


Kr. Girwar Singh Vs. Ram Sarup and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectProperty
CourtAllahabad
Decided On
Reported inAIR1935All945; 159Ind.Cas.446
AppellantKr. Girwar Singh
RespondentRam Sarup and ors.
Excerpt:
- .....their share of income of the market which is held in thok dhyan in which defendants 1 to 3 have no share. defendants 1 to 3 are also not the lambardars of thok dhyan. consequently no suit of the plaintiffs for their shares of profitis of the market held in their thok could lie against defendants 1 to 3 in the revenue court minder section 226 or under section 227, tenancy act. it being so, the present suit which does not fall under section 226 or under section 227, tenancy. act, lies in the civil court.3. the next point urged by the learned counsel for the appellant is that the suit being for a period of more than 3 years is time-barred. the suit has been brought for a period of six years. the plaintiffs have been given a right under the registered agreement referred to above executed by.....
Judgment:

Ganga Nath, J.

1. This is a defendant's appeal and arises out of a suit brought against him and other defendants by the plaintiffs-respondents for rendition of accounts of the income derived from the market in Mauza Pachawar and for their share out of the income of the market held in the plots in Thok Dhyan. The plaintiff's case was that the parties are lambardars of Mauza Pachawar. Mauza Pachawar is divided into three Thoks : Thok Billo, Thok Dhyan and. a Shamlat Thok. A market is held on some plots in these thoks. The lambardars of the village used to make collections and divide the income among the co-sharers. About 8 or 9 years ago a dispute arose between the lambardars. The Collector of Muttra took over the management of the market. He began to make collections and deposit the income in the Savings Bank. Subsequently a compromise was arrived at between the lambardars and it was decided that in future the lambardars will arrange for management and they appointed defendants 1 to 3 to take up the management and realise the income. Defendants 1 to 3 executed a registered agreement under which the co-sharers were given a right to sue them to recover their shares. The plaintiffs further alleged that defendants 1 to 3 have made collections and have not paid the plaintiffs' share. The defendants contended that the plaintiffs had no right of suit and the suit did not lie in the civil Court. The trial Court found against them and gave a decree to the plaintiffs. In appeal the judgment of the trial Court was confirmed.

2. Out of the three defendants only one has appealed. It has been urged on behalf of the appellant that the suit did not lie in the civil Court. A suit for profits which falls under Sections 226 and 227, Tenancy Act, cannot lie in a civil Court. Under Section 226, Tenancy Act, a co-sharer may sue the lambardar for a settlement of accounts, and for his share of the profits of a mahal, or of any part thereof. Under Section 227, Tenancy Act, a co-sharer may sue another co-sharer for a settlement of accounts, and for his share of the profits of a mahal, or of any part thereof. In this case the suit is brought by the plaintiffs for their share of income of the market which is held in Thok Dhyan in which defendants 1 to 3 have no share. Defendants 1 to 3 are also not the lambardars of Thok Dhyan. Consequently no suit of the plaintiffs for their shares of profitis of the market held in their Thok could lie against defendants 1 to 3 in the revenue Court minder Section 226 or under Section 227, Tenancy Act. It being so, the present suit which does not fall under Section 226 or under Section 227, Tenancy. Act, lies in the civil Court.

3. The next point urged by the learned Counsel for the appellant is that the suit being for a period of more than 3 years is time-barred. The suit has been brought for a period of six years. The plaintiffs have been given a right under the registered agreement referred to above executed by defendants 1 to 3 to sue them for their shares of profits which is collected by defendants 1 to 3 if the plaintiffs' share is not paid to them. The suit is on the basis of a registered agreement and therefore it is not time-barred. The third point was that the plaintiffs had no right of suit. As already stated, the plaintiffs have been given a right under the agreement to sue the executants (defendants 1 to 3) for their shares of profits. Consequently the plaintiffs have a right of suit. There is no force in the appeal. It is therefore ordered that it be dismissed with costs. Permission to file a Letters Patent appeal is granted.


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