JUDGMENT 1. This is a defendant's appeal. The appeal has been argued by Mr. H.N. Seth for the appellants with great ability. 2. The appeal arises out of a suit brought by the lambardar of village Maholi for arrears of the lambardari dues for the years 1350, 1351 and 1352 Fasli. The claim was denied on the ground that there was a perfect partition in the village in 1328 Pasli, that the patti of the defendants was separated and was known as patti No. 3, and that they, as exclusive owners of the patti, Were paying the land revenue direct to the Government and realising rents from the tenants. 3. The fact that there was a perfect partition, that the lambardar had no share in patti No. 3 and that the defendants were realising rents from the tenants and paying the land revenue was not denied. But it was claimed that as the liability of the lambardar for the payment of the land revenue remained, he was entitled to get remuneration at the rate of 5 per cent. 4. The claim was dismissed by the trial court on the ground that after the perfect partition of 1328, the lambardar was no longer entitled to claim haq lambardari. The lambardar appealed and the lower appellate court, relying on a large number, of decisions quoted in its judgment, allowed the appeal and decreed the suit. None of the cases mentioned in the judgment under appeal were referred to by either counsel as they do not seem to have much relevancy on the point before us. 5. A lamberdar is appointed u/s 45 of the Land Revenue Act III of 1901, and u/s 144. the land revenue has to be paid through him. The provisions of the section are as follows: The revenue is to be paid through the lamberdar, who, subject to rules made u/s 234, shall be remunerated by such fees to be paid by the other proprietors, not exceeding 5 per cent on the revenue payable in respect of their shares, as the Provincial Government may prescribe. 6. It may be noted that u/s 142, all the co-sharers in a mohal are jointly and severally responsible for the land revenue. 6. It may be noted that u/s 142, all the co-sharers in a mohal are jointly and severally responsible for the land revenue. And u/s 142, 'writs of demands as well as processes by arrest and detention of, his person, by attachment and sale of his moveable property, by attachment of the specific share, patti or mohal in respect of which the arrear is due can be issued against any co-sharer. Section 144 however, prescribes for payment only through the lamberdar. though land revenue is not always paid through the lamberdar but in a large number of cases through the co-sharers' We are, however, not concerned with this. All that we need notice is that though Section 144 provides for revenue to be paid through the lambardar, it mentions that he is to be remunerated by fees not exceeding 5 p.c. of the laud revenue subject to rules made u/s 234. u/s 234 of the Land Revenue Act certain rules have been framed and they provide for the payment of remuneration to the lamberdar. Bule 236 provides that the remuneration shall be as fixed between the lamberdar and the co-sharers by contract. It is admitted that there was no agreement between the co-sharers and the lamberdar, so that rule does not help. Rule 137 provides that, in the absence of such an agreement, the lamberdar is entitled to 5p.c. upon the land revenue payable by the co-sharers in respect of their shares. Rule 238 goes on to provide that this percentage payable by any co-sharer to the lamberdar ' will be payable upon the whole of the revenue Which the lamberdar is, by virtue of his appointment, entitled to collect on account of such co-sharer's share, and which has been paid either by the co-sharer or by the lamberdar, into the Government treasury, at any time subsequent to the lambardar's' appointment. 7. The above quotation will show that rule 238 (1) lays down to conditions. Firstly that the land revenue should have been paid into the Government treasury. Whether such payment might have been made by the co-sharer or by the lamberdar, it does not seem to matter Secondly, the lamberdar should have been entitled to collect the amount on account of such so-sharer's share. The word 'collect' is of some importance. The rule does not provide that if the lamberdar is entitled to deposit, then he can claim remuneration. The word 'collect' is of some importance. The rule does not provide that if the lamberdar is entitled to deposit, then he can claim remuneration. It provides that the lamberdar can claim remuneration on the amount that he is entitled to collect. 8. As regards the lamberdar right to collect, we have been Referred by the learned counsel to Section-245 of the U. P Tenancy Act; which is move or less similar to Section 365 of the U.P. Agra' Tenancy Act of 1926 and has replaced the old section. The relevant portion of Section 245 (1) is as follows The lamberdar in an united mohal or in the common land of a mohal thok or patti of which he is the lamberdar, is entitled, in the absence of any contract or usage to the contrary, to collect rents and other dues. 9. This makes it perfectly clear that the lamberdar is entitled to make collection in an undivided mohal and where the mohal, thok or patti has been divided, he is entitled to make collection in the common land of such mohal, thok or patti. The point is covered by two decisions of this Court in Khan Alt Khan v. Masihulzaman Khand and Sunder Lal v. Subedar Singh. Both there were cases where there was an imperfect partition. Where there has been a perfect partition, as in, this case, a lambardar, has still less justification for claiming the right. It is admitted in the present case that the laberdar is not a co-sharer in patti No. 3 which belongs to the defendants. We cannot, therefore, hold that . the laberdar had any right to make any collection in patti No. 3. He, therefore, does not satisfy the requirements of rule 234 (l) of the Rules framed u/s 246 of the Land Revenue Act and cannot claim lamberdari dues after the perfect partition. 10. The result, therefore, is that this appeal is allowed, the decree of the lower appellate court is set aside and that of the trial court is restored. The defendants are entitled to their costs in all courts.