Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

1933 (2) TMI 17

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... y and that he and the plaintiff were holding it as mutwalis. He however raised the plea that the mutwallis were not cosharers within the meaning of Section 164, Agra Tenancy Act, 1901 (the suit had been instituted before the passing of the New Agra Tenancy Act) and so he (the plaintiff) could not maintain a suit for profits. This contention was accepted by the Courts below. Both the Courts have held that a mutwalli is not a co-sharer and cannot therefore maintain a suit for profits. The plaintiff has preferred this second appeal. Section 226, New Agra Tenancy Act, corresponds to Section 164 of the old Act (Act 2 of 1901). Under the provisions of this section a co-sharer may sue the lambardar for settlement of accounts and for his share in p .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... behind the record, receive evidence and itself try the question of proprietary title. This ruling is authority for the principle on which the' appellant relies that in a case where a person is re-corded as holding a particular share-in a village in the khewat the entry gives him the right to institute suits as a co-sharer and it is not open, to the Revenue Court to go into the question as to whether' or not he has,, standing the entry in his favour, a proprietary right in the share standing in his name. 3. learned Counsel, who appeared for the respondent, has contended that the word co-sharer means a person who-has a proprietary interest in the share held by him. His argument is that when a wakf is created, the property vest .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ,, certainly the main contention of the-respondent would be sound. On a consideration of the question however we are of opinion that the word co-sharer for the purposes of the Rent Act should not be given such a narrow interpretation. It will be seen that the term co-sharer has nowhere been defined in the Agra Tenancy Act. In our opinion, the correct definition of a co-sharer would be: a person whose name is recorded in the khewat as a co-sharer and who is jointly and severally liable with other cosharers for the land revenue and whose revenue is payable through the lambardar under Section 144, Land Revenue Act. 5. If a person is liable for the payment of the land revenue along with other cosharers in the village then he must be de .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... venue Act, the Government realizes the entire land revenue from him. The rents have been realized by other cosharers. When he sues the cosharers for the land revenue, then, according to the argument of the learned Counsel for the respondent, it would be open to the other cosharers to say that no suit would lie in the Revenue Court as the lamhardar was holding the share standing in his name only as a mutwalli of the wakf and had no proprietary interest in the same. The mutwallis would not be able to eject their tenants as they would be met with the plea that they (the mutwallis) were not cosharers. In other words, the provisions of the U. P. Land Revenue Act and Agra Tenancy Act would not, be applicable' to those persons holding shares i .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... a superintendent. A manager holds the property during the pleasure of the proprietor. But the mutwalli in private wakfs holds the property during his life. After his death mutwalliship will go to his legal heirs. ; If they are several heirs they will all be entitled to the profits of the wakf estate. The mutwalli in the case of a private wakf would not be accountable to any outsider in respect of the income of the wakf property. We are unable to accept the contention of the respondent that a mutwalli cannot be-said to be a co-sharer. Nor are we; prepared to accept the argument of the learned Counsel for the respondent that no one who is not a proprietor can be said to be a co-sharer within the meaning of Section 226, Agra Tenancy Act. 8 .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates