The duty of the lambardar to collect and pay land revenue, and the entitlement of the sadar lambardar to recover the amount from a cosharer as per the provisions of the Land Revenue Act.

Pollock, J—The plaintiff-respondent Mt. Parwati Bai is a cosharer in patti No. 3 in mauza Besawa and is the lambar. dar of that patti. The land revenue assessed on this patti is Rs. 105-5-4, but this land revenue is assessed on the share held by the other cosharers, Parwati Bat's share being held free of assessment. The defendant-appellant Thakur Singh is the sadar lambardar of the village. It was the duty of Parwati Bai as lambardar of patti No. 3, to collect the land revenue assessed on that patti and to pay it to the sadar lambardar. In the year Sambat 1987 (1930-31) she omitted to do so, but Thakur Singh paid the entire land revenue assessed on the village into the treasury and then applied to the tahsildar under S. 157, C.P. Land Revenue Act, to recover from Parwati Bai the land revenue assessed on the patti No. 3. The tahsildar recovered Rs. 116-9-4 from Parwati Bai. In the following year Parwati Bai paid Rs. 110 into the treasury in order to avoid any action being taken against her as in the previous year. She has brought the present suit to recover these two sums. Under S. 188(1), C.P. Land Revenue Act, it is the duty of every lambardar to collect and pay to the sadar lambardar so much of the land revenue as may be payable through him. It was therefore the duty of Parwati Bai to collect the land revenue assessed on her patti and to pay it to Thakur Singh. She omitted to do so. S. 157 provides that any sadar lambardar who had paid any land revenue due by any proprietor may apply to the Deputy Commissioner to recover the amount on his behalf. The learned Additional District Judge has held that under S. 157 nothing can be recovered from a proprietor except that portion of the land revenue assessed on his share. In coming to this conclusion he has relied on certain obiter dicta in 22 Anandrao v. Daulat, 1926 AIR(Nag) 274 and Keshao Rao Buti v. Krishnarao Komati, 1926 AIR(Nag) 318. In Anandrao v. Daulat, 1926 AIR(Nag) 274 it was remarked:

We cannot see that any primary responsibility with reference to the payment rests on the sadar lambardar under the new arrangement introduced by the Land Revenue Act of 1917.

2. With due respect it seems to me that S. 187, which lays down that it is the duty of the sadar lambardar to collect from the lambardars the land revenue assessed and pay it to Government, lays a primary responsibility on the sadar lambardar, though his ultimate responsibility may be no more and no less than that of other cosharers who are all jointly and severally liable for the entire land revenue of the village. Again the remark in Keshao Rao Buti v. Krishnarao Komati, 1926 AIR(Nag) 318 that the sadar lambardar has nothing whatever to do but to accept the money which the other lambardars pay to him under S. 123 and to send it on with that for his own patti to the treasury is not, in my opinion, an accurate interpretation of S. 187(5). It is the duty of the sadar lambardar to collect from the lambardars the land revenue assessed on the mahal, and to collect does not merely mean to sit still and accept what is brought to him. Under S. 188 it was the duty of the lambardar of patti No. 3 to pay the land revenue assessed on that patti to the sadar lambardar and that the land revenue was due from Parwati Bai. I do not think that it is justifiable to read the words in S. 157 'any land revenue due by any proprietor'' as meaning any land revenue due by any proprietor qua proprietor and to leave it open to the lambardar to neglect his duty with impunity. Parwati Bai was a proprietor and the entire land revenue of her patti was due from her and in my opinion the tahsildar was entitled under S. 157 to recover that amount from her.

3. In the particular circumstances of this lease I think that the tahsildar would have been justified in refusing to recover this amount from Parwati Bai as she held her share free from assessment and the rents had been collected by the sadar lambardar. The tahsildar however acted legally in re