MIDNAPORE ZAMINDARY CO Vs. UMA CHARAN MANDAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Their Lordships do not desire to hear the respondents. The point arising for decision on this appeal is a short one. In the group of suits, which the appellants brought in India, the question which, for the purpose of to-day, was the material one to be considered was this :-At what date is the under-tenure, of which they had become purchasers at a sale under a decree for rent, to be taken to have originated? It was in connection with a prayer to have encumbrances cleared off that this question arose, and according to the date fixed, earlier or later, they would be able to clear off more encumbrances or fewer. Now to ascertain the date, at which a particular holding first began to be held as a definite holding, is essentially a question of fact, and must depend on evidence. That evidence may be, and naturally is, documentary, but the documents admitted in evidence upon that question are really historical materials, and although they have to be construed, and if possible understood, they are not to be treated as involving issues of law merely because they have to be construed. It is not as though they were being construed as instruments of title, or were contracts or statutes, or otherwise the direct foundation of rights.

(2.) The Subordinate Judge, who tried a number of these suits, came to the conclusion that the date at which the under-tenure purchased by the plaintiffs had first arisen was March 6, 1884. Some others were heard by the munsif, who came to a contrary conclusion. They were all consolidated and came before the District Judge, and the finding of the District Judge affirmed that of the Subordinate Judge, not in every respect upon the same grounds in detail, but substantially upon the same lines.

(3.) The case was then appealed to the High Court. When first it came before the High Court, that tribunal contented itself with observing that the issues which are now before their Lordships raised questions of some nicety, and proceeded to dispose of the appeal upon a different ground, which need not be further enlarged upon. That judgment of the High Court was brought before their Lordships and was reversed, and so the case came to be remitted to India to be finally disposed of, and on the second occasion the High Court dealt with the issues now in question, which they had previously said little about, and briefly concurred in the view taken by the District Judge.