JUDGMENT

1. This appeal has been referred to a Bench under Section 14(2), Oudh Courts Act. It arises out of a suit brought by a lambardar, Kuar Anrudh Singh, to recover arrears of land revenue under Clause (16) of Section 108, Oudh Rent Act, for the period from 1342 to 1344F. The suit was brought against four defendants. Of these, Abhilakh Bux Singh, defendant 3 was the cosharer originally responsible for the payment of land revenue to the lambardar. Defendant l, Syed Sakhawat Abid, had obtained a simple money decree against him and in execution of that decree a receiver, Wasi Haider, defendant 2, had been appointed. The share of Abhilakh Bux Singh had been subsequently sold at a court auction to defendant 4, Thakur Prasad.

2. The trial Court decreed the suit against the receiver only, observing that he was in proprietary possession of the share and as such was responsible for payment. He had alleged that he had not been able to realise any rent from Rabi 1342F because Abhilakh Bux Singh, defendant 3, had realised the rent through his relative or relatives. The trial Court observed that it was the duty of the receiver to realise the rent and to take steps against any person collecting it without authority. There was an appeal to the District Judge by the decree-holder and the receiver. The plaintiff lambardar filed a cross appeal in which he prayed that a decree should be passed against the vendee Thakur Prasad also. The District Judge modified the decree against the receiver so as to make him not liable personally. He allowed the cross appeal against the vendee on the ground that he was in proprietary possession of the share and as such was liable under Section 142, Land Revenue Act. He accordingly passed a decree against both the receiver (exempting him personally) and the vendee.

3. The present appeal has been brought by the vendee, Thakur Prasad, who contends that the District Judge has not properly construed Section 142, Land Revenue Act. Section 142 provides that all the proprietors of a mohal are jointly and severally responsible to Government for the revenue assessed thereon, and that all persons succeeding to proprietary possession therein, otherwise than by purchase under Section 160 shall be responsible for all arrears of revenue due at the time of their succession. There is an explanation to the section which defines "proprietor" as meaning a person in proprietary possession for his own benefit and including a mortgagee and a lessee of proprietary rights. It is conceded that the vendee appellant was never in possession. He attempted to obtain possession, but the possession of the receiver was maintained. The District Judge was of opinion, however, that as the vendee was recorded proprietor he must be held to be in proprietary possession. He drew a distinction between proprietary possession and actual possession.

4. We do not consider that the lower appellate Court has rightly construed the section. The provision that all the proprietors of a mohal are responsible for the revenue must be read in the light of the explanation which shows that they can only be held liable if they are in proprietary possession for their own benefit. In the present case, the appellant was not in possession at all and therefore certainly cannot be held to have been in proprietary possession for his own benefit. We cannot uphold the view of the District Judge that a proprietor must be held to be in proprietary possession if he is not in possession at all. The usual meaning of the expression "proprietary possession" is that the proprietor is constructively in possession because he is collecting rent from the tenants who are in actual cultivating possession. We are quite unable to agree that a proprietor must be held to be in proprietary possession for his own benefit if he is not in possession at all and deriving no benefit from his proprietorship. The authorities to which we have been referred for the appellant support this view. In Secreta