JUDGMENT

Daniels, J. - This is a suit u/s 159 of the Tenancy Act to recover revenue paid to the Government by the plaintiff as lambardar on behalf of the defendant who is a co-sharer under his lambardari.

2. The facts of the case are unusual. The lambardar is the person primarily responsible u/s 144 of the Land Revenue Act for paying the revenue into the tahsil. It is the duty of the co-sharers to pay their quota through the lambardar. If the revenue is not paid, it is the lambardar who in the first instance will be subject to coercive process. In this case the revenue in dispute relates to the years 1325 and 1326 fasli. The revenue of 1325 was paid by the lambardar into the tahsil in two instalments on the 5th February, 1918 and 7th June, 1918 respectively.

3. A week later, on the 11th February, 1918, the defendant paid into the treasury direct her share of the first instalment which had already been paid by the lambardar. The second instalment was Similarly paid by her on 2nd July, 1918, nearly a month after the payment by the plaintiff. The defendant in making the payment did not state that it was being made on account of the share held under the lambardari of the plaintiff. She wr