D.N. Roy, J. - (1.) In this Civil Revision the only question which we have got to consider is whether an assignee of the right to recover profits, is a "co-sharer" within the meaning of section 231 of the UP Tenancy Act of 1939, and whether a suit by him for recovery of his share of profits should be instituted in the civil court or in the revenue court. The Munsif was of the view that such a suit lay in the revenue court, as apparently it fell within group A of the 4th Schedule of the UP Tenancy Act. In appeal, the learned Civil Judge was of the contrary view and relying upon an unreported decision of this Court in Kr. Rohni Ramnaj Dhwaj Pd. Singh v. Bohrey Narain Das and Ans, Civil Revision No. X of 1947, decided on 7-10-1947 held that the suit lay in the civil court. It appears from the decision aforesaid that the authorities bearing upon the question, were not laid before the learned single Judge, who decided that Civil Revision. There is, however, abundant authority in favour of the proposition that an assignee of the right to recover profits is a "cosharer" within the meaning of section 231 of the UP Tenancy Act of 1939, and that a suit of the present nature must, therefore, be instituted in the revenue court. The Defendants-applicants rely upon the provisions of Sub-section (1) of section 3 of the UP Tenancy Act, which says that: "All words and expressions used to denote the possessor of any right, title or interest in land, whether the same be proprietary or otherwise, shall be deemed to include the predecessors and successors in right, title or interest of such person."
(2.) It may be contended that the provisions of section 229 of the Agra Tenancy Act of 1926 have not been reproduced in the Act of 1939 and therefore, an assignee will not be a cosharer. The provisions were: "The words 'lambardar' 'cosharer' muafidar' 'assignee of revenue' 'taluqdar' and 'superior propietor' in this chapter include also the heirs, legal representatives, executors, administrators and assignees of such persons."
(3.) The section appeared in the chapter dealing with the recovery of arrears of revenue and profits. The provisions in the Act of 1939 corresponding with the provisions of section 229 are, however, those in Sub-section (l) of section 3, which we have already quoted. It is true that these provisions do not explicitly say that an assignee shall be in the same position as a co-sharer, but we think that the terms of the Sub-section are sufficiently wide to include assignees. There is nothing in those terms which justifies the conclusion that a successor must be the successor in the whole of the right, title or interest of a cosharer.;