JUDGMENT Darling S.M. 1. The recommendation made by the Commissioner of Agra in his reference order dated the 16th July 1937, is accepted in a modified form. In this suit u/s 221 of the Tenancy Act the Assistant Collector framed very inadequate issues, and in the case of the first issue lay the burden of proof on the wrong party. In a suit of this kind the Lambardar is only entitled to a decree if he can show that his realizations are not sufficient to pay the land revenue, as laid down by the High Court in the second case quoted by the Commissioner, Chandra Mohan Lal v. Mst. Mathuri (1935) 1935 AWR 1202 The burden of establishing this lies entirely on the Plaintiff lambardar. I would therefore cancel the order of the Assistant Collector dated 6th February, 1937, and would remand the suit back to the Court of the Assistant Collector for determination according to law on the following issues: 1. For the seasons in suit are the realizations of the Plaintiff lambardar less than the revenue paid? Fact on Plaintiff. 2. If the first issue be decided in favor of the Plaintiff, then to what extent should the suit be decreed against each of the Defendants individually as provided by Section 221 and 228 ? Fact and Law on Plaintiff. 2. If these issues be properly tried it should 'not be necessary to make any, other Lambardar a party: but this can be left to the discretion of the Assistant Collector. Parties will be allowed to adduce fresh evidence, oral and documentary. Costs will abide result. Bomford J.M., J. 3. I agree.