GANENDRA MCHAN CHOWDHURY Vs. GYA PROSAD TEWARI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal arises but of a suit for rent. It appears that the defendants in Chaitra 1304, executed a registered kabuliat in favour of the plaintiffs with respect to the lands in suit. The term of this kabuliat was from 1304 to 1309, inclusive. It is said that subsequently in Assin 1810, the defendants obtained a letter from the plaintiffs naib by which the rent was reduced from Rs. 37-8 to Rs. 37-3, on the ground that the entire land was not fit for cultivation. A condition is said to have been attached to this reduction of rent to the effect that it was dependent on the payments of the current arid back rents within a specified time. The suit was decreed by the Munsif at the rate of Rs. 37-3, and the plaintiffs appeal to the District Judge was dismissed.

(2.) The plaintiffs accordingly have appealed to this Court and on their behalf, three points have been taken. The first is that this letter on which the Courts below have relied was inadmissible in evidence and reliance has been placed on the decision in the case of Lalit Mohan Ghose v. Gopali Chauk Coal Co. Limited 12 Ind. Cas. 723 : 39 C. 284 : 16 C.W.N. 55 : 14 C.L.J. 411 in which it was held that a document, embodying an agreement for reduction of rent under a previously existing lease registered under the Registration Act, requires registration.

(3.) It seems perfectly clear that, if this letter had been granted by the plaintiffs within the term of the lease, the decision quoted would be fully applicable. It has, however, been argued by the learned Vakil for the defendants that this letter can be referred to for the purpose of rebutting the presumption that after the expiration of the period of the lease, the defendants continued to hold over on the same terms.