AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
No AI summary yet
Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.
Judgment
3 paragraphs · 195 wordsW. Comer Petheram, C.J. and Tyrrell, J.—The plaintiff sues in the Revenue Court for a one-fifth share in certain profits of a village, which were divisible on the 1st July 1883. The defendant-lambardar resists the claim, on the ground that the plaintiff was not recorded as a recorded co-sharer on the 1st July 1883. The Judge and the Assistant Collector allowed this contention, and dismissed the plaintiff''s suit; but this is an erroneous view of Section 93(h) of the Rent Act. In July 1883, the plaintiff was a recorded co-sharer, though his share was not specifically stated. The plaintiff was recorded in "shamilat" with all the other pattidars.
This is an entry of a share of a co-sharer amounting to an interest within the meaning of Section 93(h). The lower Courts have wrongly held that, because this interest was not specifically defined in a fractional or separate form the suit would not lie. The order of the Lower Appellate Court is reversed, and this appeal decreed, and the case remanded, u/s 562 of the Code, for a decision on the merits. The costs of this appeal to be costs in the cause.
Petheram, C.J.