Mahipat Narain Singh and Others vs Kirit Singh and Others

Atkinson, J.—This second appeal comes before me from the decision of the Subordinate Judge of Patna affirming the decision of the Munsif dismissing plaintiff''s suit. The plaintiff is a co-sharer malik of Mauza Sahzadpur to the extent of 4 annas 10 d. 17k.; defendants Nos. 1 to 11, who are the principal defendants in the suit, are the tenants; and defendants Nos. 12 to 18 are the other co-sharer maliks of the mauza. The plaintiff seeks to recover his share of the rent from defendants Nos. 1 to 11. It appears from the entry in the Records of Rights that a tenant of one holding is entitled to a right, jointly with others, in a different plot of land; but in assessing the rent of the holding in the exclusive possession of one tenant the rent was calculated to include the right which he had jointly with others in a separate and distinct plot of land. Thus by way of illustration Kirat Singh who is the tenant of holding No. 82 and whose rent is recorded as Rs. 7-10-15 dams has also a right, jointly with others, in Plot No. 81 and the assessed rent of Rs. 7-10-15 dams represents the rent for Plot No. 82 plus the joint interest in 81. In my opinion the liability to pay rent in respect of Plot No. 82 is wholly distinct and separate from the liability to pay rent for the interest in Plot No. 81. Eleven tenants have been sued. One of them appeared and took this point in paragraph 9 of bis written statement, namely, Sarju Singh. He says that in respect of holding No. 95 he is the tenant; but that he also has a right, jointly with, others, in Plot No. 81 and Plot No. 96. In my view the liability of this defendant in respect of Plots Nos. 81 and 86 is a separate and distinct liability; and has nothing whatsoever to do with his liability to pay rent in respect of Plot No. 95. It seems to me under the circumstances that the learned lower Courts were perfectly right in saying that one suit cannot be maintained for the recovery of rent in respect of different and distinct liabilities with regard to separate holdings and that consequently this action was not maintainable. I, therefore, disallow this appeal but make no order as to costs. The costs in the lower Courts will stand.