Back
ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
BANERJI, J.
Ram Singh - Appellant
Versus
Lalta Prasad - Respondent
Decided On : 09-04-1912
JUDGMENT
Banerji, J. - 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 u/s 159 of the Agra Tenancy Act or u/s 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 u/s 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 u/s 160 and was well within limitation. This is the only point argued. I dismiss the appeal with costs.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
