JUDGMENT Karamat Husaink, J.
1. This was a suit by a lambardar against a co-sharer for arrears of revenue and other dues. The Court of first instance gave the plaintiff a decree and awarded him 5 per cent, for haq lambardari. The defendant appealed, contending that the plaintiff was not entitled to lambardari dues. The lower appellate Court came to the conclusion that the lambardar was not entitled to his remuneration. That Court in its judgment remarks: "The right to receipt of haq lambardari is given by Section 144, Local Act III of 1901. Before that right can be proved the rules framed under the section must be examined. The rules in question sanctioned by G.O. No. 553/1333 F. dated the 24th of February, 1902, are printed at 8 III Board's Circulars, Vol. I. Paras. 22-25 give the practice. They show that a lambardar is not entitled to receipt of haq lambardari, qua lambardar, on all demands for land revenue but only where the demand is paid into the Government Treasury. Now it cannot be assumed that the demand in this case will be paid into the Government Treasury. There is some reason to suppose that it will not be paid into the same. The respondent is apparently the assignee of Government Revenue and as such will retain the amount. It was for the respondent to prove that he was entitled to receive haq lambardari and as he did not do so, he must be held to have failed on the point."
2. The above remarks show that the lower appellate Court is of opinion that a lambardar is entitled to the haq lambardari only in those cases in which he pays the revenue collected by him on account of his co-shaiers into the Government Treasury. Rule 24 of Board's Circulars 8 III (Vol. I) is as follows: (1) except as guarded by Clause (2) of this rule, the percentage payable by any co-sharer to the lambardar will be payable upon the whole of the revenue which the lambardar, is, by virtue of his appointment, entitled to collect on account of such co-sharer's share, and which has been paid either by the co-sharer or by the lambardar into the Government Treasury at any time subsequent to it he lambardari appointment. (2) The percentage will not be payable in respect of any revenue realised from a co-sharer by the Collector or his subordinates under a Court of demand or a warrant of arrest issued against the co-sharer, or after attachment of his share whether separately or in combination with the share of any other co-sharer, or after transfer of his share (whether separately or in combination with the share of any other co-sharer) to any co-sharer other than the lambardar, or after the annulment of, the settlement of the patti or the mahal in which the share is included, or after the sale of his immovable property for the recovery of the arrear (3). Nothing in the proceeding clause applies, to any arrears recovered on behalf of the lambardar under Section 184 of the Act.
3. A careful examination of the rule shows that in the case contained in Clause (2) the lambardar is not entitled to any percentage from a co-sharer whom he represents, and that he is entitled to the percentage from a co-sharer whom he represents when the Government Revenue payable by the co-sharer is paid into the Government Treasury either by co-sharer or by the lambardar. The rule however, is silent as to the case of payment of Government Revenue to the assignee of such revenue. It is conceded by the learned Counsel for the respondent, in view of Rule 18(a), that if the assignee of the Government Revenue is a person other than the lambardar himself, and if he paid the revenue payable by the co-sharer to the assignee, he will be entitled to his remuneration, but it is contended that when the lambardar himself is the assignee of the Government Revenue and puts the revenue payable by a co-sharer whom he represents into his own pocket, he is entitled to no remuneration. I am unable to accede to this contention. A lambardar is entitled to the remuneration fixed by Section 144 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act, for the trouble which he takes in collecting the land revenue for a co-sharer whom he represents, and Rule 24(1) of the circular of the Board of the Revenue, in addition to the above trouble, imposes upon the lambardar the duty of paying the revenue into the Government Treasury, in order to entitle him to his remuneration. The lambardar, in the case before me, is admittedly the assignee of Government Revenue. To my mind the trouble which he takes in collecting the revenue payable by the co-sharers is sufficient, in this case, to entitle him to the remuneration fixed for him by Section 144, Land Revenue Act, and, the mere fact, that besides being the assignee of the Government Revenue he is the lambardar, can make no difference. The result is that I allow the appeal, modify the decree of the Court below, and decree the plaintiff's claim for lambardori remuneration amounting to Rs. 29-1, with costs.