Patna High Court
Babu Maniram Singh vs Akloo Ahir And Ors. on 12 February, 1917
Equivalent citations: 39IND. CAS.222, AIR 1917 PATNA 32
JUDGMENT Roe, J.
1. The short point for decision in these two cases is whether an entry regarding the rights of landlord and tenant in trees if recorded in the village note is relevant evidence. It has not been used in the cases before us as presumptive proof of the statements made; it is challenged only as not coming within the provisions of Section 35 of the Evidence Act. In my view in making an entry of village customs in the village note the Settlement Officer is acting as a public servant in the discharge of his official duty. I note that in Rule 90 of the rules framed by the Local Government the final Record of Rights is to contain a statement for each village of the customs prevalent in each village, and that in Sections 457 and 617 of the Settlement Manual the Board of Revenue has prescribed rules for the guidance of officers in collecting statistics which will be incorporated at the close of their investigations in the final report I hold that it is the duty of Settlement Officers to collect evidence of custom in each village and that the final result of their investigations, when recorded in the village note, is a record made by a public servant in the discharge of his official duties.
2. The appeals should be dismissed with costs.
Chapman, J.
3. I agree.