Durga Prasad vs Raja Harihar Prasad

Sir Ali Imam, Kt., J.—The plaintiffs instituted this suit for recovery of rent in respect of 60 bighas of land situated in Mauza Singthu. The defendant resisted the claim on the ground that the land in question was "aima lakhraj" and that he had never paid any rent to the maliks and that no such rent was payable for this land. The learned Munsif of Bihar, who tried the suit, decided it in favour of the plaintiffs and gave them a decree at the rate of the jama claimed in the plaint. The defendant appealed to the learned District Judge of Patna, who dismissed it with costs. The present appeal is from the decision of the learned District Judge.

It is contended on behalf of the defendant-appellant that the learned Judge did not apply his mind judicially to the evidence adduced on his behalf in rebuttal of the presumption arising from the Record of Rights.

It appears that the land in question was recorded in the Record of Rights in the column which runs thus: "darmiani haqdar fee taraf se adai honeke laek lagan?". The lower Appellate Court has correctly construed this heading and has rightly come to the conclusion that the amount mentioned under this heading, namely, Rs. 37-8-0, is the amount which is the actual rental of the land in question. The learned Judge has also correctly construed Exhibit 3, which is a mokurrari deed, executed by defendant No. 1 in favour of defendant No. 2. An examination of this deed clearly points out that there was some Government revenue payable on account of the 60 bighas of land. I am, therefore, of opinion that on the construction of Exhibit 3 and on the construction of the Record of Rights the lower Appellate Court has come to correct findings. The difficulty in this appeal, however, is that there is nothing in the judgment of the lower Appellate Court to show that the presumption that arises from the Record of Rights has been considered in the light of the evidence adduced by the defendants.

The learned Vakil, Mr. Kulwant Sahay, appearing on behalf of the defendant-appellant urges that it was necessary for the lower Appellate Court to have considered that evidence and then come to a distinct finding as to whether or not that evidence had or had not rebutted the presumption that arises from the Record of Rights. The contention of the learned Vakil is supported by the decision given in Laloo Singh v. Tahbal Gope 38 Ind. Cas. 814; 1 P.L.W. 193 and Dilan Singh v. Choa Singh 42 Ind. Cas. 397; 2 P.L.W. 183.

I accept the contention of the learned Vakil. The result is that the judgment and the decree of the lower Appellate Court are set aside and the case is remanded to the learned Judge for rehearing and disposing of the appeal on arriving at a distinct finding on the question as to whether the presumption arising from the Record of Rights has or has not been rebutted in the light of the evidence produced by the defendants. Costs will follow the result.