1. I think the conclusion at which the Courts below have arrived is correct. The plaintiff is the lambardar and he brought the suit, out of which this appeal has arisen, against the defendant, who is a co-sharer, to recover arrears of revenue paid by the plaintiff for the defendant. The amount of the revenue was actually paid on the 3rd of July 1906. The suit was brought on the 30th of June 1909. The question is whether the claim is time barred. The decision of this question depends on whether the suit was in reality a suit under Section 159 of the Agra Tenancy Act or under Section 160 of that Act. Section 159 contemplates a suit by a lambardar for arrears of revenue payable to the Government through the lambardar by a co-sharer, whether such revenue has actually been paid or not. The limitation for such a suit is three years from the date when the revenue became payable. Section 160 contemplates a case where arrears of revenue have actually been paid by one co-sharer for another. The two sections make a distinction between revenue which is payable and revenue which has actually been paid. Where a person who has paid the revenue happens to be a co-sharer, he can sue his co-sharer, for whom he has paid the revenue, within three years of the date of payment. If he happens to be the lambardar, that would, in my opinion, not take the case out of the category of those contemplated by Section 160. As I have already said, where the lambardar sues to recover arrears of revenue payable by a co-sharer, the suit is one under Section 159, and such a suit must be brought within three years from the date when the arrears became payable. In the present case, the arrears were actually paid. Therefore, this was in reality a suit under Section 160 and was well within limitation. This is the only point argued. I dismiss the appeal with costs.