KAMAR KAMAKHYA NARAYAN SINGH Vs. BECHU SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The predecessor-in-title of the plaintiff granted a mokarrari istumrari lease in favour of Dipnath Singh and Mitarjit Singh. It is conceded that the lease was not a hereditary lease but that it was operative for the lifetime of the grantees. Mitarjit Singh who survived Dipnath Singh died sometime in 1902. The suit out of which this appeal arises was instituted on the 1st of April 1920 for the ejectment of the defendants. The suit has been dismissed as against defendants Nos. 8 to 11 on the ground that they have acquired a title by adverse possession.

(2.) It is contended that, on the admission made by defendants No. 8, there was no question of adverse possession to be tried. Defendant No. 8 said in examination-in-chief that he never paid rent for the mauza to the Ramgarh Raj. In cross-examination he said as follows: "I paid rent for the mauza in suit for two or three years after Mitarjit's death to Narsingh Dyal the zarbharnadhar of the mauza under the Raja, and I used to get receipts from him. I paid rent to him for 9 or 10 years in all. The receipts which I got from the zarbharnadhar are at home. They were marfatdari receipts."

(3.) It is contended that there is a direct admission by defendant No. 8 that there was payment of rent by him to the Raj and that the payment of such rent by defendant No. 8 and the acceptance thereof by the plaintiff operated as a recognition of defendant No. 8 as a tenant from year to year, and that, that being so, the defendants could not put forward a title by adverse possession as against the plaintiff. If this argument is to succeed at all it could not help defendants other than defendant No. 8; but, in my opinion, the argument ought not to succeed at all. It will be noticed that the Court below has proceeded on the hypothesis that rent was never paid by these defendants and it appears that the argument was not put in this form in the Court below. But what is the admission made by defendant No. 8 in this case his admission is that the zarbharnadhar of the Raj accepted rent from him and granted him marfatdari receipts. Now marfatdari receipts are receipts made out in the name of the original tenant although they show that the rent has been actually paid by a third person. The question is whether the grant of marfatdari receipts operated as a recognition of defendant No. 8: as a tenant from year to year.