Patna High Court
Nand Lal Singh And Anr. vs Ramphal Singh And Ors. on 9 August, 1920
Equivalent citations: 59IND. CAS.875, AIR 1920 PATNA 794
JUDGMENT Jwala Prasad, J.
1. This appeal arises out of a rent suit. There is no dispute as to the area comprised in the holding of the defendant, namely, 14 bighas odd. The plaintiff claimed cash rent at the rate of Rs. 51-12-6 with respect to 10 bighas, 6 kathas, 2 dhurs of the holding and bhaoli, batai rate with respect to 4 bighas 6 kathas, 16 dhurs. The defendants' chief contention was that the entire holding was nakdi and that no portion of it was bhaoli batai. The Courts below have concurrently overruled this contention and have given a decree to the plaintiff as claimed by him. The defendants have come to this Court in second appeal and dispute the correctness of the view taken by the Courts below.
2. The main contention of the learned Vakil on behalf of the appellants is, that the Courts below have not appreciated the documentary evidence filed on behalf of the defendants and have thereby vitiated the findings, The documents relied upon by the defendants are, (1) the Road Cess Return of 1902 (1309) Exhibit G, (2) plaint of a suit of 1904 (Exhibit 1), and (3) rent receipts for the years 1312 to 1318 (1905-1911). In the first of these documents, i.e., the Road Cess Return, the defendants' holding is shown to consist of 15 bighas odd with a rental of Rs. 55 odd. The contention is that Section 20 of the Road Cess Act (IX of 1880) bars the right of the plaintiff to claim bhaoli rent with respect to a portion of the holding on the ground that the same was not entered in the Return. This contention is untenable. There is no provision in the Act for showing the bhaoli lands or the rent thereof in kind. Such lands have to be shown with the cash rent, ascertained upon the average of three years' share of the landlord in the produce of the land: vide Section 14, read with Section 4, of the Act. A bar under Section 20(b) does not apply to bhaoli lands. The fact that bhaoli is not mentioned with respect to any land in the Return would not, therefore, debar the landlord from claiming produce rent for the same. The form prescribed for the Return leads to the same conclusion. This view is supported by the authority of this Court in the case of Upendra Lal Misra v. Moti Thakar 41 Ind. Cas. 61 : 2 P.L.W. 35 : 2 P.L.J. 617 : (1918) Pat. 166, the owe precisely on the point. Therefore, that document is no evidence for the purposes contended for by Mr. G.D. Singh.
3. The next document is the plaint (Exhibit I) in the suit brought by the part proprietors of the estate against the defendants in 1904. No doubt, that plaint shows that the claim was nude at a nakdi rental and there is no mention of any portion of the land being bhaoli. We do not know what became of that suit. The written statement, the judgment and the decree have not been placed on the record. That document, at best, can only be a kind of admission by come of the proprietors of the estate.
4. The third class of document consists of rent receipts. The first Court suspected their genuineness. There is no precise finding of the lower Appellate Court on the point, nor has the finding of the Munsif been clearly displaced though there is a passage refuting the suggestion of the respondents that all the receipts were written by the same ink. These receipts are only of a few years back. Shortly after these receipts were granted, the estate passed to the plaintiff by sale. The subsequent conduct of the parties in connection with the land in dispute shows great suspicion as to the receipts and the contents of the plaint, and, at any rate depreciates their value. The plaintiff purchased the interest in the estate in the year 1319 and shortly after he instituted a suit for the realisation of rent from the defendants for the years 1318 to 1320, as back rents were also assigned to him. In that case, as is apparent from the decree, the claim was for nakdi rent at the rate of Rs. 51 with respect to 10 bighas only, as 13 claimed in the present case. The decree was made after contest as the judgment (Exhibit 3) show, but no plea as to the entire holding being nakdi appears to have been raised in that case. The judgment may not operate as res judicata, but certainly is a piece of evidence under Section 13 of the Evidence Act, as showing that the plaintiff asserted his right to nakdi only in respect of a portion of the holding. The Court below was right in using the judgment as corroborative of the entry in the Survey Record of Rights. That record clearly shows Plot No. 169, with the area 3.79 acres, equal to 4 bighas. The Record of Rights is in favour of the plaintiffs. The defendants have to rebut the presumption of its correctness. The Court below was perfectly justified in holding that the defendants failed to do so when the Record of Rights finds great support from an inter party decree of a more recent date than any of the defendants' documents. There is no error in law in this case and the judgment of the Court below must therefore, be upheld.
5. Mr. Ganesh Dutt Singh also disputed the amount of the decree passed by the Courts below for the bhaoli rent. This point does not appear to have been urged before the learned District Judge and it is not open to urge it in this Court.
6. The result is that the appeal is dismissed with costs.
7. The learned Vakil on behalf of the plaintiff filed a cross-objection in respect of the damages disallowed by the Courts below. J. however, agree with the reasons given by the learned Sessions Judge for disallowing the damages. The cross objection also is, therefore, disallowed.