AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
The Judge was wrong in not making allowance for the cultivation expenses incurred by the defendants. The cases referred to by him Altap Ali v.
Lalji Mal ILR (1877) A. 518, Dungar Mal v. Jairam ILR (1902) A. 375, Dakhina Mohan Roy v. Saroda Mohan Boy ILR (1893) C. 142 , do not
support his view. These cases referred to a claim for the costs of collecting the rent due from the persons in occupation of land. The plaintiff claims
Rupees Four an acre for those expenses. It is not contended that the claim is excessive. We allow it. The appellant is not able to shew that the
amount paid by him for revenue and water-cess was more than the value of straw and some hemp which has been set off against it. The order of
the Lower Court is modified by deducting from the amount decreed cultivation charges at Rs. 4 an acre.
The Respondent objects to the court fee and pleader''s fee on Rs. 9883-6-0. The amount of profits prior to the plaint has been omitted by
mistake in the order of the Lower Court. This is not denied. The error must be corrected by re-taxing the costs. Each party will have proportionate
costs in this appeal.