KUER RAI Vs. BABURAM KUER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal by the plaintiff from a decision of the District. Judge of Saran reversing a decision of the Munsif of Chapra. The appeal arises out-of a suit for recovery of 2 bighas odd. The plaintiff claimed the land under a registered patta dated 15 September 1936,. granted by defendant 4, the admitted landlord of the property. Defendants 1 to 3 resisted the claim on the basis of an unregistered patta granted to them on 1 May 1929, by Kedar Prasad the mukhtar-am of defendant 4. The Court below has found that defendants 1 to 3 were .granted settlement by Kedar Prasad, that he had authority to make the settlement, that even if he had not such authority the settlement was ratified by defendant 4 and that defendants 1 to 3 are settled raiyats of the village. The decision is challenged on various grounds. In the first place, it is contended that the unregistered patta on which the defendants-relied was inadmissible for the purpose for which it has been used by the Court below, namely for explaining the nature of the defendant's possession. Reliance was placed! on the decision in Ramautar Singh V/s. Juthi Tatma (1937) 18 PLT 1012.

(2.) In that; case a person who was not in possession, sued to recover possession basing his title on an unregistered patta and on receipts granted by the landlord, it was held that, the Courts below were not justified in. admitting the unregistered patta or the-receipts for the purpose of proving that the plaintiff was entitled to recover possession. The facts of the present case are quite different. A person relying on the unregistered patta is admittedly in possession and; under the decision of this Court in Janki Kuer V/s. Brij Bhikhan Ojha AIR (1921) Pat 641 he is entitled to refer to the unregistered patta for the purpose of explaining the nature of his possession, that is to say for the purpose of explaining that he was let into possession as a tenant. The first objection of the appellant is therefore overruled. With regard to the finding that defendant 4 ratified the settlement made by her mukhtar-am, the Court relied on a money-order coupon evidencing the receipt of money as rent of the disputed land by defendant 4 from defendants 1 to 3, and on receipts for rent granted by the gomasta and patwari of defendant 4.

(3.) The learned advocate referred to the proviso to Section 54(2), Bihar Tenancy Act, which provides that where rent is paid by money order an entry in the money order shall not be evidence of the relationship of landlord and tenant between the persons who are described as such in the money order form. To the extent to which the Court below relied on the coupon its finding with regard to ratification of the contract of defendant 4 is vitiated. It was also contended that the receipts granted by the gomasta and patwari of defendant 4 were insufficient to establish ratification in the absence of it being shown that they were authorized to settle land with tenants by defendant 4. Now these receipts bear the words "tahsil khas malik" indicating that they were receipts granted by the gomasta or patwari for money actually received by the landlord herself.