Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 3 of 3 (0.19 seconds)Section 11 in The Punjab Tenancy Rules [Entire Act]
Debi Pershad vs Bhagwan Din And Ors. on 6 August, 1912
4. Three points are taken in the grounds of appeal. The first is that the suit was not maintainable under Section 194 of the Tenancy Act by the plaintiffs alone. It is common ground that the Defendant No. 1 is an ex-proprietary tenant in this land which was his sir land before he sold his share to the plaintiffs. It has been ruled by a Fall Bench of this Court in Debi Pershad v. Bhagwan Din [1913] 35 All. 27 that in such a case the vendor of a share in the village who becomes an ex-proprietary tenant in respect of his sir land is a tenant of the whole body of co-sharers and not merely of his vendees. I agree with this ruling and in any case I am bound to follow it. There was reliable evidence that there were other co-sharers. Under Section 194, therefore, of the Tenancy Act 2 of 1901 the plaintiffs were not entitled to sue without joining the other co-sharers in the absence of a local custom or special contract entitling them to collect the rent alone from this holding and to sue for the rent alone. But the lower Court has held that it is not permissible to go into this question by reason of a previous decision in a similar suit for rent wherein the defendants failed to resist the suit on the plea that the plaintiffs were not entitled to sue alone and in consequence had a decree for rent passed against them. I am of opinion that the lower Court is right in holding the matter to be settled under the rule of res judicata.
1