JOGENDRANATH DAS Vs. DAMODARDAS KHANNA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The defendant appeals from the decree made in a suit brought for purpose of setting aside the sale of a holding in Panchannagram. The sale was held on 21 December 1926, for the default of payment of revenue or rent, which accrued due on 28 March 1926 and for which the latest date for payment, under the orders of the Board of Revenue was 28 July 1926. This is described as the rent or revenue for the Bengali year 1332, which corresponds to the period 14 April 1925 to 13 April 1926. Apart from a subsidiary question, which has reference to certain buildings on the land, the only question upon this appeal is the question whether there was any arrear of revenue for 1332 to justify the revenue sale.

(2.) The terms of the tenancy are to be collected from the kabuliyat executed by the plaintiff's predecessors-in-title and dated 19 April 1876, a few days after the beginning of the Bengali year 1283. The kabuliyat states that the rent is to be at the rate of Rs. 6-6-6 per year and that the tenants will deposit the said rent in the Collectorate within 28 March each year. According to the contract therefore the rent for a year was not payable in advance, but was payable about a fortnight or three weeks before the end of each year of tenancy. The year of tenancy is not stated to be the Bengali year, but if it extended from 19 April of one year to 11 April of the next, it coincided, save for a few days, with the Bengali year. The financial year or official year, for purposes of revenue, begins on 1 April and ends on the last day of March.

(3.) In order to determine whether, in December 1926, the plaintiff had failed to pay the sum of Rs. 5-15-6, the sum to which the rent of Rs. 6-6-6 had been reduced, due in respect of his occupation of the land for the Bengali year 1332, or perhaps more accurately for the period 19 April 1925 to 18 April 1926, which is the question before us, we have to examine the jama wasil bakis of this holding. These are accounts kept by the office of the Collector of the District of 24-Pargannas and the dispute between the parties is as to their meaning. In other words, as the Judicial Committee pointed out in a case of similar character having reference to Dihi Panchannagram: Narendra Nath Dutta V/s. Abdul Hakim AIR 1928 PC 243, the question before us is a question of fact: whether a certain sum was paid before a certain date or then remained unpaid, and the entries in these jama wasil bakis are to be regarded as a narrative of monetary transactions, a narrative of which the meaning is to be got at by considering what is said and the manner of saying it.