Ghura Manjhi and Others vs Probodh Chandra Mozumdar

Ross, J.—The decree against which this appeal is brought was passed in a suit for rent, governed by the Chota Nagpur Tenancy Act. The appellants are the tenants, whose defence was a plea of payment to a third person, one Narsingh Dayal. Both the Courts below have found that they failed to prove payment of rent in good faith to Narsingh Dayal.

It is contended on behalf of the appellants that u/s 177 of the Act it was necessary that Narsingh Dayal should be made a party to the suit, on the ground that the right to receive the rent was claimed on his behalf within the meaning of that section. Narsingh Dayal did not intervene in the suit, but it is argued that if the tenant claims the right to receive the rent on behalf of a third person, then Section 177 of the Act is brought into operation, This construction does violence to the natural meaning of the words of the section. What the tenants have clone in this case is to claim the right, or rather, to acknowledge an obligation, to pay rent to a third person, The tenants cannot claim the right to receive rent on behalf of a third person. A right to receive the rent can only be claimed by or on behalf of the person entitled to receive it, and not by a person who is under the obligation to pay it. This view is in accordance with the decision in Budhan Singh v. Mawar Kali Charan Singh 57 Ind. Cas. 28 : 2 U.P.L.R. (Pat.) 190.

In my opinion, therefore, Section 177 does not operate in the present suit and the appeal must be dismissed with costs.

Coutts, J.

I agree.