INDERPAL SINGH Vs. BAFATI ORS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiff, the Raja of Mahson, is the Zemindar 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 drop raised each year payable in kind. It is alleged that in the year 13-7 Fasl, the defendant purpnsely did not tow the land, so that there was no crop.

(2.) The plaintiff sued the defendant for an years 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 (he patxari proved that no crop had been rained 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 we, 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.