JUDGMENT Rampini and Handley, JJ. - The suit out of which this appeal arises was brought for an account and for the balance due on accounts being taken from the Defendant, who was the Plaintiff's agent in collecting rent. When the accounts were taken, it was found that the Defendant had collected khurcha from the tenants. It is admitted that khurcha is an illegal cess. The question, however, is, seeing that the Defendant has collected khurcha from the tenants, can the Plaintiffs recover sums paid en this account to the Defendant by the tenants or is the Defendant to be allowed to pocket them? 2. The District Judge has held that the Plaintiff cannot recover them from the Defendant. The Plaintiff appeals and contends that the District Judge is wrong. 3. The District Judge relies on the ruling in the case of Nobhi thunder Roy Chowdhry v. Gooroo Gobind Mojoonidar (1875) 25, in which it has been laid down that a tehsildar is bound to account to the landlord for payments made to him by the tenants in excess of the rents due from them, if made voluntarily. But sums exacted by the tehsildar within the meaning of Act X of 1859, Section 10, cannot be recovered by the landlord in a civil suit. The learned Judge Says:--"This ruling clearly shows that, notwithstanding Section 218 of the Act, IX of 1872, in certain circumstances a tehsildar cannot be sued by the landlord for money received in his behalf; and also it shows that cesses which were illegal under Act X of 1859 could not be recovered from a tehsildar by a landlord, but that if they were not illegal under that Act they could be recovered I think that I am bound by that ruling to hold that cesses which are illegal under the rent law cannot be recovered from the agent by the zemindar." 4. It may appear at first sight as if the Judge has not rightly read the judgment, but on further consideration we are disposed to think that the Judges who decided the case meant to lay down that sums which were illegal cesses under Act X of 1859 could not be recovered by a landlord from his agent. But this case was decided under Act X of 1859 and it may be doubted if it was justified by anything to be found in that Act. But this case was decided under Act X of 1859 and it may be doubted if it was justified by anything to be found in that Act. However that may be, the law has been laid down differently under Act VIII of 1885, in the case of Gobind Soonder Singh v. Chandi Charan Bhattacharjee (1890) Unreported, No. 428 of 1889, decided on the 15th April 1890 by Petheram C.J. and Banerjee J. The facts of that case were similar to those of the present. As the case is unreported and the point an important one, we quote the judgment in that case in extenso: This is a suit brought by a zemindar against his gomasta for an account of the moneys collected by the gomasta and to compel him to pay over the balance in his hands. The account has been taken; and the present appeal relates to one item of it only. That item amounts to Rs. 96-5-6 and the accounts furnished by the gomasta show that this money has been received by him from the ryats. But he states that he did not receive this money as rent at all, but as mhatoot. It is contended that this mhatoot is not a sum legally recoverable by a zemindar and should his agent, or the person acting as his agent, collect money from the ryats under the name of mhatoot, he can keep the money 'himself and is not bound to pay it to his master in whose name he received it, because he, the master, could not have recovered it by law. This view was adopted by the Munsif and the District Judge; but in that view we cannot agree. True, there is the case of Nobin Chunder Roy Chowdhry v. Gooroo Gobind Surmah Mojoomdar (1870) 14 W.R. 447, which contains an expression which favours that view; but that case has been explained by the case of Nobin Chunder Roy Chowdhry v. Gooroo Gobind Mojoomdar (1875) W.R.S. 25 By that case the operation of the first is limited to the point actually decided there; and the only point decided there is, that in 'Revenue Courts nothing can be recovered except rent from any person. So the dictum in that case with reference to this point is obiter only, our opinion, if a gomasta, or any person acting in the character of an agent, gets money into his hands, professing to receive it for his master, he is liable to account for it to his master. The fact that his master could not have enforced payment does not enable the agent to keep it for his own use. To hold such an opinion would be to encourage dishonesty. If a person goes into the service of another to collect money and is entrusted with money while in that service, he is bound to pay his employer, whether he could have enforced its payment by a suit or not. If that were not so, he could keep the money given to him to hand over to his master as a present from the persons from whom he received it. Such a contention cannot prevail. We think, therefore, the view taken by the District Judge is wrong j and that his decision should be reversed with costs. The Plaintiff will get a decree for the money,--Rs. 96 and odd annas--in addition to the amount already obtained by him. The Respondents will pay the costs of this appeal. 5. We see no reason to dissent from the view of the law taken in this Court by the learned Judges who decided this case and we must accordingly follow it. 6. The provisions of the Section 74 of Bengal Tenancy Act make all abwabs illegal and stipulations for their payment void. u/s 75 a tenant can recover double the amount of any abwab exacted from him, together with a penalty not exceeding Rs. 200. But no provision in the Act allows an agent to retain the amounts of abwab he may have collected or prevents a landlord from recovering them from him. u/s 75 a tenant can recover double the amount of any abwab exacted from him, together with a penalty not exceeding Rs. 200. But no provision in the Act allows an agent to retain the amounts of abwab he may have collected or prevents a landlord from recovering them from him. As the District Judge himself has said: "The respective rights and liabilities of the Appellant and Respondent are fixed by law in Chapter X of Act IX of 1872." Section 218 of that Act lays down that, subject to the provisions of Section 217 of that Act, "the agent is bound to pay to his principal all sums received on his account;" in the Act there is no exception given to this rule; it would, therefore, at first sight appear from that section that in Indian as in English law an agent is not discharged from accounting to his principal 'by reason of unlawful acts of the principal in the 'matter of the agency and that an agent cannot plead that by reason of the money having been collected under an unlawful agreement which had been made between the principal and the person from whom the money was collected, he is not liable to account for the money to the principal. 7. We must therefore set aside the judgment of the Lower Appellate Court and hold that the Defendant is liable to pay to the Plaintiff any sums collected by the Defendant as khurcha. 8. It has been pointed out to us that in these circumstances the case must go back to the First Court, for the Munsif disallowed certain sums for which the Defendant produced receipts (A and B) and which he claimed to have paid to the Plaintiff's naib as khurcha. The Munsif held that khurcha could not be taken into account at all. If, however, the Defendant is liable for khurcha, he is entitled to credit for sums paid by him on this account. 9. We accordingly set aside the decree of the Lower Appellate Court and remand the case to him. The account must now be gone into again, taking khurcha into account on both sides. 10. The Appellant is entitled to his costs in this appeal.