JOWALA PRASAD Vs. HARIHAR PRASAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal by the defendant and arises out of a suit instituted by the respondent to recover arrears of rent due on account of certain villages which were settled with him by the receiver of the estate when he was in possession thereof on the basis of an amaldastak and followed by a registered lease given with the sanction of the Collector of Gaya.

(2.) The learned subordinate Judge reduced the claim of the plaintiff and passed a decree for a smaller sum than what was claimed in the plaint. He gave credit to defendant 1 for a sum of Rs. 1457-4-0 and overruled the defence contention that a sum of Rs. 1725 should be further reduced from the claim so found by him. He gave interest at the rate of 12 per cent, on the amount of arrears due and did not agree with the contention of the defendants that they should be allowed to make counterclaim for damages on account of their having been dispossessed in 1342 F. The defendants were referred to separate suits to claim damages if they thought fit, hence this appeal by the defendant who alone contested.

(3.) The learned advocate for the appellant contended that the Court below has not understood the defence of the appellant, and, in particular, he sought to argue that the plaintiff had not made out any case in the plaint with regard to rent for villages, Banarasi Bigha and Jarahra. He, therefore, argued that the claim of the plaintiff, as reduced by the learned subordinate Judge, should be further reduced by allowing a deduction of Rs. 1725 which was the jama for these two villages, Banarasi Bigha and Jarahra. But the difficulty in accepting this argument is that the parties appear to have agreed that the account, as produced by the defendants themselves in Exs. B and E (1), represented the correct state of affairs so far as the demand from the defendants to the plaintiff was concerned.