1938 (12) TMI 17 - HC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:

1. Validity and binding nature of the agreement (Ex. 3).
2. Entitlement to profits from the Hazari Hat.
3. Accounting for profits from specific plots.
4. Impact of land acquisition on profit-sharing.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Validity and Binding Nature of the Agreement (Ex. 3):

The plaintiffs argued that the agreement executed on 12th Poush 1236 M.B. (1874), marked as Ex. 3, was binding on both parties. The defendants contended that the agreement was not binding because some of the then owners of taraf Mahomed Rafi Khansama had not joined. The learned District Judge found that the agreement was binding, as the onus was on the defendants to prove non-acceptance by the non-signatory predecessors, which they failed to discharge. The Court noted, "the admission of defendant 1 that he was bound by the agreement, though he is not a signatory was a relevant fact."

2. Entitlement to Profits from the Hazari Hat:

The plaintiffs sought a declaration of their entitlement to half of the moneys lying with the Collector from the Hazari Hat. The Court of first instance granted the plaintiffs an eight annas share, but the lower Appellate Court dismissed the suit due to defects in the original plaint. The High Court allowed an amendment to include all relevant plots, leading to a de novo trial. The amended plaint claimed a moiety share based on Ex. 3. The lower Appellate Court later adjusted this to a 2/5ths share due to land acquisition, which the High Court affirmed, stating, "the shares of the plaintiffs and the defendants in the profits of the hat ought to be in proportion of the respective areas of the two tarafs."

3. Accounting for Profits from Specific Plots:

The learned District Judge directed the plaintiffs to account for profits from plot No. 1 of the Maghi Survey Chitta from 18th April 1917 until the attachment was withdrawn. The High Court clarified that the plaintiffs must account for the profits and any improvements made at their cost, stating, "the liability to render accounts is on the plaintiffs, because admittedly the plaintiffs are in possession of that plot which has not been attached by the Collector."

4. Impact of Land Acquisition on Profit-Sharing:

The defendants argued that the plaintiffs' share should be reduced due to the acquisition of 21/2 kanis of land from taraf Azim Mukim. The lower Appellate Court held that the plaintiffs were entitled to only 2/5ths share of the profits post-acquisition. The High Court agreed, noting, "inasmuch as 24 kanis of land appertaining to taraf Azim Mukim has gone out of the hat... the parties can only have shares in proportion to the areas of land left in the hat."

Conclusion:

The High Court dismissed the appeal, affirming the lower Appellate Court's judgment that the plaintiffs are entitled to a 2/5ths share of the profits from the Hazari Hat. The Court directed that the plaintiffs must account for the profits from plot No. 1 and any improvements made. The decree was made more specific, stating, "the plaintiffs' title is declared to those lands of the Hazari Hat as are covered by the M.S. and C.S. plots in schedule as have been found by the Commissioner... the plaintiffs must render accounts of the rents and profits in respect of plot No. 1 of the Maghi Survey Chitta from 18th April 1917 till the attachment by the Collector is withdrawn."

Each party was directed to bear their own costs in the appeal.