RAJA NARENDRA BAHADUR PAL Vs. BAFATI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The facts giving rise to this application in Civil Revision arc as follows: The plaintiff, the Raja of Mahson, is the zamindar of the holding in dispute. The defendant is its occupancy tenant and holds it on batai rent, that is to say, the rent payable by him is half the crop raised each year payable in kind. It is alleged that in the year 1327 Fasli, the defendant purposely did not sow the land, so that there was no crop.

(2.) The plaintiff sued the defendant for arrears of his rent in that year, in the Revenue Court. The pleadings are not before me.

(3.) From the judgment of the Assistant Collector, it appears that that court dismissed the suit, on the ground that the palwari proved that no crop had been raised on the land. On appeal, the Collector contented himself with dismissing the appeal in a judgment of a few lines, without any discussion. That litigation ended there. I presume it could have been taken further, but as the pleadings are not before me, I cannot say. But anyhow I think it unnecessary to pursue that question further. The Revenue Court did not refuse to hear and decide the suit; but decided it rightly or wrongly (it is immaterial which) apparently on its merits on the evidence before it.