Ramgobind Sahu vs Moso Dhobi and Others

Manohar Lall, J.—The plaintiff instituted Bent Suit No. 8230 o� 1933 to recover rent due for the years 1339 to 1342 in respect of certain piece of gairmazrua land in the occupation of the defendants claiming rent at the rate of Rs. 7-2-0 per annum.

The defence was that the land was rent-free, that they never paid any rent to the maliks nor did the maliks ever realise any such rent. The defence set up has been negatived. The Courts below have given good reasons for holding that it is impossible to believe that the land which is in Dalsinghsarai Bazar should be treated to be rent free upon the materials put forward by the respondents.

But the Courts below dismissed the suit on the finding that there was no sufficient evidence as to when the land was assessed with rent and how much was the rent payable. It may be remarked that it was not necessary to find out the origin of the tenancy if evidence was sufficient to show the amount of rent payable for this land.

The Courts below have, however, refused to place reliance upon the documentary evidence produced by the plaintiff and have held that the evidence of the plain, tiff is insufficient to show that the defendants agreed to pay Rs. 7-20 as rent to the plaintiff. The trial Court has pointed out-among other things that no village papers of the other cosharer landlord have been produced, and this was a remarkable fact considering that the case came up for hearing after setting aside the ex part(c) decree which had been fraudulently obtained by the plaintiff. It is true that the reasonings of the Courts of fact are not quite satisfactory when they have rejected the documents filed by the plaintiffs as manufactured, but be that as it may, this Court cannot interfere in second appeal with the conclusion which has been arrived at by the Courts of fact. That conclusion is that the plaintiff has been unable to prove the rate of rent which is payable by the defendants.

It was then argued strenuously by the learned advocate for the appellant that the suit should be remanded in order to decide what would be the damages properly payable to the appellant for the use and occupation of the land by the defendant for the years in suit and he relied upon two cases of this Court, namely, Jai Narayan v. Kuleswar Singh AIR 1929 Pat. 233 and Kameshwar Singh Bahadur Vs. Shaikh Sakhawat Ali and Others, , in support of his contention.

But in both these cases the suits were instituted for assessment of fair and equitable rent after a declaration that the land was liable to assessment as such. The present case is wholly different. No declaration is sought for here, but on the other hand it was asserted that the land has been settled at Rs. 7-2-0 per annum with the defendants. The story of that settlement having failed it is impossible to allow this suit to be tried as a suit for declaration that the land was liable to be assessed for rent. This land has never been treated as kabil lagan, on the other hand the plaintiff treated it as always bearing a rental.

For these reasons the appeal fails and is dismissed. But as the case of the defendants was that the land was rent free and that case has been found to be false, I order that each party should bear his own costs throughout.