The main legal point established in the judgment is that a successor in office is not liable for the illegal and excessive acts of the predecessor, and set-off is not permissible under Section 81 of the C.P. Tenancy Act unless determined by a competent authority.

Puranik—This second appeal arises out of a suit for recovery of Rs. 136-13-0 as arrears of rent for 1937-1938 and a part of 1938-1939. The Plaintiff is the lambardar of the village, and the Defendants are tenants owning land in occupancy right assessed at Rs. 92 rental. The present Plaintiff was appointed lambardar on 8th January 1938, and the amount that is claimed by him has fallen due as rent after he became the lambardar of the village. The Defendants admitted that they had not paid the rent for the years 1347 and 1348 Fasli; but they pleaded that they had paid Rs. 114 on 25th November 1935, as rent for 1344 Fasli to the former lambardar of the village. These rents for the year 1344 Fasli were subsequently remitted by Government on 8th February 1938 and 14th July 1938. The Defendants therefore pleaded that the Plaintiff who is now the representative in office of the former lambardar was bound to give them credit for Rs. 114 recovered from them by the previous lambardar. On behalf of the Plaintiff it wag stated that the Defendants ought not to have paid rents for 1344 Fasli inasmuch as Government had suspended rents for that year when Defendants allege they paid it. It was further pleaded that payment was made, not to the Plaintiff, but to the former lambardar; the Plaintiff was not in any way bound by the action of the former lambardar, particularly in view of the fact that that action of his was wrong inasmuch as he could not have recovered rent for 1344 Fasli and yet he recovered it; there is no provision of law under which the Defendants in a suit for arrears of rent for subsequent years could claim credit for a payment wrongly made in a previous year. The plea of the Defendants, it was urged, amounted to a plea of set-off and such a set-off was not permissible under Section 81, C. P. Tenancy Act. The trial Court accepted the contentions on behalf of the Plaintiff and decreed the claim. The lower appellate Court, however, in an appeal filed by the Defendants took a different view. It allowed the appeal of the Defendants and decreed the claim to the extent of Rs. 13 instead of Rs. 136-13-0. Against this decision the Plaintiff has come up in second appeal. On behalf of the Respondents a preliminary objection was raised that the entire appeal abated inasmuch as the legal representatives of Pratapchand, who died on 11th February 1943, were not brought on record. Pratapchand was one of the co-tenants. Each tenant is liable jointly and severally to pay the rent. The mere fact that the legal representatives of Pratapchand have not been joined as parties to this appeal does not result in the abatement of the entire appeal. I hold that there is no substance in this objection.

2. The Appellant contended that the decision of the lower appellate Court holding that the Plaintiff as a successor in office of the former lambardar was bound to give credit for the amount realized by the former lambardar was against law. I am clearly of the opinion that this contention is sound. Admittedly Rs. 114 were paid, not as rent for any of the years in suit, but expressly for the year 1344 Fasli, and it is not disputed before me that the said payment was made at a time when payment of rent had been suspended. The Defendants paid that amount without knowing that there was a suspension. Though the Defendants did not know that there was a suspension the lambardar must have known about it, and if the lambardar realized rent he exceeded his authority and did an illegal act. Moreover it is quite clear that the rent of the holding was only Rs. 92 while he realized Rs. 114 i.e., Rs. 22 in excess. This further demonstrates the illegality of the act of the former lambardar. I am not aware of any law under which a successor in office-assuming that that is the position to be assigned to the present lambardar-can be held liable for the illegal and excessive acts of his predecessor. Under the C.P. Tenancy Act in a suit for recovery of arrears of rent no