Laldhari Mander and Others vs Etwari Mahton

Manohar Lall, J.—This is an appeal by the plaintiff who is aggrieved by the decision of the learned Subordinate Judge of Monghyr by which he varied the decision of the learned Munsif. The appellants instituted a suit for recovery of arrears of rent on 28th September 1941 for 1347 Fasli. The rent claimed was the cash price rather the equivalent of 41 maunds of grain which the defendants stipulated to pay to the plaintiffs by a registered kabuliyat which was to run from 1345 to 1351 Fasli.

In that kabuliyat, a romanized transliteration of which has been placed before me, it is clearly stated that the defendant is taking the settlement of Manhunda at the annual rental of 41 maunds of the grains which will be produced in the land and that he will hand over that quantity of grains every year on the khalihan to the landlord and that if he does not do so he will be liable to pay the current damages therefore to the landlord. Relying upon the terms of this document the trial Court gave decision in favour of the appellants by taking the sale rates from the Bihar Gazette in these terms:

Thus on the findings above the plaintiff will get a decree for the money value of the crops claimed. The sale rate will be taken from the Bihar Gazette. In case the price of crops claimed is not found in the Gazette, then the price given in the plaint will stand.

Against this decision there was an appeal to the learned Subordinate Judge who took the view that the parties had agreed that the rental for this land would be Rs. 82 per annum. He relied for this construction upon the statement in the first page of the kabuliyat wherein it is stated: "taidad maliat...mowazi 41 man ghalla Manhunda jiska qeemat moblig 82 rwpeya hai." This, as is well-known, is a statement of the valuation for the purpose of registration. In any case this cannot vary or alter the clear stipulation which is contained in the body of the document which I have reproduced above. For these reasons I am satisfied that the decision of the learned Munsif was correct and that the learned Subordinate Judge fell into an error.

The learned Subordinate Judge was also impressed by the fact that the plaintiff had not stated what was the produce in the year in suit but nevertheless he claimed to be given the equivalent of 20 1/2 maunds of paddy and of 20 1/2 maunds of gram and wheat. It is true that there is nothing to show that these were the crops that were grown on the lands in the years in suit, but the onus upon this point was upon the defendant. The defendant was in possession of the land and he grew the crops and it was his duty to produce evidence before the Court that the crops said to have been grown were not grown by the defendant.

The result is that the appeal is allowed and the decision of the learned Munsif restored, with costs in all the Courts.