Rani Bhuneshwari Kuer vs Numeshwar Singh and Others

Ross, J.—These are appeals by the plaintiff in suits for rent of the years 1328 to 1329. During 1326 and 1327 the rent was bhaoli and for 1328 and 1329 it was a cash rent, the rent having been commuted u/s 40. The only question in these appeals is as to the bhaoli claim for 1326 and 1327.

The learned Munsif accepted the plaintiff''s papers and gave a full decree. The learned District Judge held that with regard to 1326 the case for the tenants must be accepted that there was no crop in that year which was a notoriously bad year. This is a finding of fact. With regard to 1327, it seems to me that the decision of the learned District Judge must be set aside. He has not considered the plaintiff''s papers on their own merits. He has contrasted the rates disclosed by these papers with the commuted rate and, finding that there was a great discrepancy between them, has held that the plaintiff''s claim was unreliable. But the commuted rate is not the criterion for the produce of any particular year and the standard adopted by the learned District Judge is not a correct standard. He in fact admits this by adding to the commuted rent one-third which is arbitrary.

I would, therefore, allow these appeals so far as the year 1327 is concerned and decree the plaintiff''s claim in full for that, year. With regard to damages the learned District Judge has allowed only ten per'' cent, in that year on the ground that the claim for bhaoli had been excessive. On the view that the plaintiff''s papers must be accepted, the full claim for damages must also be allowed.

Costs will be according to the success of the parties.

Das, J.

I agree.