Co-sharers must bring a general suit for village accounts rather than suing the lambardar for each item of village profits to avoid multiplicity of suits.

Mittra—The plaintiff sues for a half share of the profits of one abadi plot No. 569 in mauza Khandwa Taraf Kunbi. His allegations are that Govindram and Rajaram, who were the owners of a half share in that mauza, mortgaged their share in plot No. 569, together with a house in the town to one Ibrahim Kachi by a possessory mortgage-deed, dated the 12th of March, 1906, and this, mortgage was assigned to him.

2. It appears that subsequent to this mortgage, Govindram and Rajaram sold 2 annas share of the village and mortgaged the remaining 6 annas by way of usufructuary mortgage to Seth Radhakishan Jaikishan.

3. The only defendant in the suit is the lambardar who owns the remaining 8 annas share.

4. The plaintiff claims, profits of this plot for the last six years against the defendant in his Capacity as lambardar. The defence is that the lambardar is not an accounting party to the plaintiff in respect of this plot and that the suit is not tenable apart from a suit for village accounts.

5. The plaintiff has not cared to amend the plaint by asking that village accounts should be gone into in the presence of all persons interested and thereafter his share of profits determined and decreed. Moreover, the plaintiff does not seek accounts of the rents of the house in the town of Khandwa which he says he is realizing separately.

6. The Courts below have dismissed the suit, following Pandit v. Pandu,1892 5 CPLR 80, where it was laid down that a co-sharer cannot sue the lambardar for each item of village profits, but must bring a general suit for village accounts.

7. In this second appeal it is contended on behalf of the plaintiff-appellant that the rule laid down in the case cited only applies where a co-sharer is entitled to the profits of more than one item and that the rule is meant to prevent multiplicity of suits.

8. This is no doubt the raison detre of the rule. But the question still arises whether the lambardar undertakes to render account to each holder of a fragment of right in the village not having a definite fractional share therein. To accept the plaintiff's contention would be to impose upon the lambardar an onerous duty which would make his position intolerable. If the plaintiffs suit succeeds, there may be a deficit in the village accounts and the lambardar will be forced to bring a suit to recover such deficit from the plaintiff's transferors and any adjudication come to in this suit will not bind the latter.

9. If the plaintiff's transferor cannot claim an account of one item of property, he cannot transfer to the plaintiff the right to demand such an account apart from a suit for general village accounts. The lambardar undertakes to explain village accounts to all those who are jointly interested in the 8 annas patti and any apportionment of profits as between them is a matter which does not concern him.

10. If those who can jointly claim with the plaintiff on account refuse to do so, the plaintiff may make them defendants in the suit. There is no such private between the plaintiff and defendant as entitles the former to treat the latter as his agent in respect of this item of property.

11. The right inheres in the plaintiff jointly with persons interested in the patti. The suit as framed against an agent is not maintainable at the instance of the plaintiff alone and in respect of one plot.

12. It was further contended that apart from the defendant's position as lambardar, he should be treated as a bailiff on the analogy of the English Statute of the 4 Anne, C. 16.

13. That Statute, as explained in Henderson v. Eason, 1848 15 Sim 303 is inapplicable to the usual mode of enjoyment of joint malguzari villages in India. S. 27 provides that an action of account may be brought and maintained by one joint tenant and tenant-in-common against the other as bailiff for receiving more than comes to his just share. Parke, J., in delivering the judgment, says: Every case in which a tenant-in-common receives mote than his share is withi