The main legal point established in the judgment is that cosharers in a malguzari village are entitled to claim their share of profits from excess sir and khudkasht land in a suit for village profits without joining other cosharers, based on the interpretation of the lambardar's duties under the C.P. Land Revenue Act.

1. The plaintiffs-appellants filed the present suit against the defendants-respondents for village profits mouza Pimpalgaon for the years 1329 to 1332 In these years the plaintiffs held varying shares in the village in question, and Kisan, of whom the defendants-respondents are the representatives, was admittedly lambardar of the village during these years.

2. One of the main questions for decision in this appeal relates to the plaintiff's claim for their share of income derived toy the various cosharers in the village from excess sir and khudkasht land in their occupation, and the rental assessed on the sir and khudkasht land has been made the criterion by which the alleged profits in question should be assessed. The question for consideration is whether such rental assessment of sir and khudkasht land should be taken into account in estimating the profits in question, and the further question arises as to whether it was necessary for the proper decision of this matter to join the other cosharers in the suit or not. The defendant's original plea in this connexion apparently was that, in practice, the rental of sir and khudkasht land was not taken into account in calculating village profits, but the Judge of the first Court referred to the suit brought by Kisan, lambardar, in 1911 (cf. P. 16 and P. 17) in which he claimed contribution from other cosharers in respect of the assessment of the land revenue he had to meet, and in that case he did include the sir and khudkasht land assessment in his claim. The Judge of the first Court was pressed by the defendants to make the other cosharers a party and he refused to do so. He held, however, that the defendants having failed to prove that it was the practice not to include the rental in question in the village profits account, the plaintiffs were entitled to include this item also in their claim.

3. On the case going to the Court of the District Judge on appeal, the latter was of opinion that the plaintiffs could claim the propotion of the rental of the sir and khudkasht land only from those co-sharers who were in possession of such land in excess of their respective shares in the village. Further, the plaintiffs having failed to join these co-sharers in the suit, the plaintiffs in the present suit could only claim their share of rental of excess sir and khudkasht land of which the defendant Kisan vas in possession. There being no proof on this point, the District Judge reversed the finding of the first Court thereon and refused to allow this item of the plaintiffs' claim. Around this item arises the most important controversy in the present appeal, and it has been suggested on behalf of the appellants, on the strength of the decision in Gang a Singh v. Ram Sarup, that the plaintiffs were entitled to include the item in question in their claim, even without making the other co-sharers parties. The decision in question of Richards, C.J., and Muhammad Rafiq, J., was, of course, directly concerned with the Agra Tenancy and U.P. Land Revenue Acts, the incidents of which differ considerably from those of corresponding legislation in these provinces It was pointed out by the learned Judges in the said case, that, if the lambardar is the agent of the co-sharers or the purpose of bringing a suit for rent, he would appear to be equally their agent for the purpose of bringing a suit against the cosharers who held sir and khudkasht land in excess and who had refused to allow the sir and khudkasht which they so held to be taken into account. In Bishambhar Nath v. Bhola, 1912 34 ILR(All) 98, a contrary view was taken by Knox and Griffin, JJ., these learned Judges holding that a lambardar was not the agent of the cosharers generally so as to be entitled to sue on their behalf to recover profits due to some of them from other cosharers holding sir and khudkasht lands in excess of their proper shares. The judgment in question was a brief one, and the decision really proceeded on the one find