JUDGMENT Ghulam Hasan, J. - The only question which has been raised in this second rent appeal on behalf of the Defendant is that the lower appellate Court ought not to have allowed any lambardari dues to the Plaintiff The suit was filed by the Respondent lambardar for arrears of land revenue for 1346 Fasli alleging that he had paid the revenue on behalf of the Defendant-Appellant. He also claimed village expenses and lambardari dues at the rate of five per cent. 2. The Court of first instance dismissed the suit holding that the land revenue in respect of the Defendant's share had been realized from him under coercive measures. The lower appellate Court has reversed this view and has allowed lambardari dues at the rate of five per cent. Both the Courts below have concurred in holding that the Defendant-Appellant paid off the entire revenue and cess for the year 1346 Fasli and nothing was therefore due from him. They have also disallowed the village expenses on the finding that the empire revenue was deposited by the Defendant in the Tahsil and the lambardar never incurred any expenses in collecting the revenue. The lower appellate Court has held relying on a decision of the Board of Revenue in Ashraf Ali v. Mirza Shamsuidin Ahmad (1927) 4 O.W.M. 1939 that a lambardar is entitled to remuneration even if the co-sharers have paid the revenue direct, his right to the prescribed fees remitting unaffected by their action. 3. The lower appellate Court has extended this rule even to cases where the revenue has been realized from a co-sharer through a coercive process. 4. In appeal it has been contended by Learned Counsel on behalf of the Defendant that his client is not liable for the lambardari dues under the provisions of Rule 238 (2) of Chapter VIII of the Revenue Manual. Rule 238 runs thus: 238. (1) Subject to the provisions of 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, entitle it collect on account of such co sharer's share, and which has been paid, cither by the co-sharer or by Mia lambardar, into the Government treasury at any time subsequent to the lambardar's appointment". (2) Except in proceedings u/s 184 of the Act, the percentage will not be payable in respect of any revenue realized from a co-sharer by the Collector under any of the processes specified in Section 96 the Act. 5. It is clear from Sub-rule (2) that the j percentage to which a lambardar is entitled under the provisions of Sub-rule (1) is not payable in respect of any revenue realized from a co-sharer by the Collector under any of the processes specified in Section 145 of the Land Revenue Act. A reference to the evidence which was accepted by the Courts below shows that the revenue was realized from the Defendant apparently u/s 146(a), namely by serving a writ of demand or a citation to appear on him. Section 144 which confers a right upon the lambardars to receive the lambardari dues from the co-sharers at a rate not exceeding five per cent on the revenue payable in respect of their shares clearly restricts that right to rules made u/s 234 of the Act. Section 234(p) empowers the Provincial Government to make rules providing for the payment of the Revenue through limbardars and for their remuneration. Rule 238 of the Revenue Manual appears in Chapter VIII which relates to the appointment, duties, dismissal and remuneration of lambardars. Rules 36, 237 and 238 relate to remuneration of lambardars and are framed by the Provincial Government to regulate the right of the lambardar to receive lambardari dues The provisions of Rule 238(2) of the Revenue Manual appear to have been overlooked by the lower appellate Court in deciding this question, The decision of the Board of Revenus relied upon by the lower appellate Court in re: Ashraf Ali does not touch this point. That decision merely lays down that u/s 144 of the Land Revenue Act the lambardar is entitled to remuneration even in cases where the co-sharer has paid the revenue direct. That case follows a decision of the Allahabad High Court in Bhojraj v. Srigopal (1910) 7 L.C. 647 in which again there was no question of any coercive process having been issued against the defaulting co-sharers from whom the land revenue was realized. I hold, therefore, that the view taken by the lower appellate Court is not correct. 6. That case follows a decision of the Allahabad High Court in Bhojraj v. Srigopal (1910) 7 L.C. 647 in which again there was no question of any coercive process having been issued against the defaulting co-sharers from whom the land revenue was realized. I hold, therefore, that the view taken by the lower appellate Court is not correct. 6. Accordingly I allow the appeal, set aside the judgment and decree of the lower appellate Court and restore that of the Court of first instance dismissing the suit. The Appellant will get his costs in the two Courts below. There will be no order as to costs in respect of this Court, the Respondent being not represented.