BHAJAN SINGH Vs. MOTIPUR ZAMINDARI CO LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal by the defendants in a rent suit brought by the Motipur Zamindari Co., Ltd. The suit was for recovery of arrears of rent for 1341 to 1344 Fasli in respect of certain areas of land with a certain jama after remitting man pagri. The only defence which requires notice is that the area and the jama of the holding were not as stated by the plaintiff. The trial Court held that the area and jama of the defendants were as stated in the plaint, namely 15 bighas, 5 kathas and 9 dhurs with jama of Rs. 49-15-6. The matter was then taken in appeal before the learned District Judge of Muzafferpur who held that the area of the suit land was 15 bighas, 5 kathas and 9 dhurs and that the correct rental was Rs. 48-12-3 including cess after deducting one rupee as mafi pagri.

(2.) This apparently is a finding of fact which cannot be interfered with by me. But the learned advocate for the appellants vehemently contended that the Courts below having found that there had been an enhancement of more than two annas in the rupee their judgments are vitiated and should be set aside. It was also argued that the Courts below were not justified in holding that the survey entry was incorrect and, therefore, this was a serious error in law which should be corrected by this Court. Mr. Mehdi Imam further argued that the Courts below erred in law in ignoring the admission of the plaintiff or of his witness and suggests some sort of estoppel,

(3.) I am of opinion that all these contentions are without any substance. The trial Court pointed out that it was true that the plaintiff's patwari stated that in the survey entry the area increased to 24 bighas, 17 kathas and the jama was increased to Rs. 81-12-0 after survey with the consent of Sheosaran, ancestor of the defendants, but pointed out that this statement was his inference with reference to the village papers as he was not present at the time of survey and so refused to act upon this statement. How it was open to the learned Munsif not to rely upon the so-called admission and the weight to be attached to that admission was a matter for that Court of fact and in this he has committed no error in law.