G. Narayanasawmi Naidu, Receiver vs Chintalapati Subbaraju, minor, by Mother and Guardian, Bangariah

We think the Subordinate Judge was clearly in error in supposing that it was necessary for the plaintiff to prove the cultivation of the 90 acres by

the evidence of a witness who actually saw that area under cultivation. He has also entirely misunderstood the effect which should be given to

accounts prepared in the ordinary course by a public officer, as Exhibit A has been prepared in this case. There is no reason why exhibit A should

not be acted upon as a correct account. It shows that the Government officer, after enquiry, found that the 90 acres were cultivated, and it is also

proved that the defendant did in fact pay Rs. 450, the Government water rate on that area. The defendant gives no explanation for this having been

paid if the land was not cultivated. He calls no evidence whatever to disprove the cultivation. We set aside the decree of the Subordinate Judge

and restore that of the District Munsif with the modification that the decree amount is payable only out of the assets of the defendant''s grandfather

with costs in this and in the lower appellate court.