- (1.) THIS appeal is by the defendant. It arises out of a suit for recovery of arrears of tankha or maintenance grant. The liability for the grant is not disputed. But the defence contention is that as, at the time the grant was made, the property, which was specified and out of the income whereof the said maintenance was to be paid, was not subject to any agricultural income tax, which has subsequently been imposed upon it, the amount of maintenance was liable to be proportionately reduced; or, in other words, a proportionate abatement of the grant amount was necessary. The first two courts accepted this defence contention and granted the plaintiff a decree for a reduced amount after as proportionate deduction of the above tax liability. In second appeal by the plaintiff to this Court the concurrent decisions of the two courts below were reversed and the plaintiff's suit was decreed in full. Against this judgment, the present appeal has been filed by the defendant. The sheet anchor of the defence case was section 18 of the Bengal agricultural Income Tax Act. That section is in these terms : "any person receiving agricultural income, as referred to in sub-section (1), may, before paying to any beneficiary any share of such agricultural income, to which such beneficiary is entitled, deduct from such share the amount of agricultural income tax or its equivalent value in kind, if such share is paid in kind, rateably paid in respect of such share. " it appears to us that the above statutory provision directly applies to the instant case. The opening words "any person receiving agricultural income" may very appropriately refer to the defendant and the words, "any beneficiary entitled to a share of such, agricultural income," may also appropriately refer to the plaintiff as the grantee of a portion or share of the agricultural income of the properties in question from the defendant Maharaja. Upon this view, the above statutory provision will directly apply to the instant case and would entitle the defendant maharaja to deduct from the plaintiff's claimed amount the agricultural income tax, rateably paid in respect of the same or the plaintiff's share of the above agricultural income; or, in other words, the plaintiff's claim would be ratcably reduced in the proportion of the levy of the agricultural income tax. That was what was done by the first two courts and, in the circumstances, their coreurrent decision, reversed by this Court in second appeal, would have to be restored. We would, accordingly, allow this appeal, set aside the judgment and decree of this Court and direct that the concurrent decisions of the first two courts giving the plaintiff a decree for a reduced amount be restored. There will be no order for costs in this appeal.;