RAM NANDAN PRASAD Vs. TILAKDHARI LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal arises out of a suit for the recovery of possession of 8 cothas 10 dhurs from the eastern portion of plot 632 in Mouza Bhagwanpur Guddi, touzi No. 4650. The plaintiff's case was that the land had been settled with him in 1320 Fasli by the then landlord on payment of a nazrana of Rs. 100 and on a rent of Rs. 8 a year. Defendant 1's party, who are the appellants, admittedly represent the proprietary interest at present and their defence was that plaintiff's story of settlement was false, that the land was the proprietor's kamat and remained in khas possession or in the possession of a thikadar who held, a lease from 1329 to 1333 Fasli and that on the expiry of the thika they had settled the land by a kabuliyat of 1926 with the defendant second party.

(2.) The trial Court disbelieved the rent receipts and other evidence adduced on behalf of the plaintiff and dismissed the suit. On appeal, the learned Subordinate Judge believed the plaintiff's papers and other evidence, and disbelieved the defendants papers and other evidence, and accordingly decreed the appeal and the suit. The learned advocate for the appellants has contended that the findings of the lower appellate Court are vitiated by the improper rejection of Ex. B and the improper admission of Ex. 2. To take the latter first, Ex. 2 is a rent receipt for 1320 in favour of the plaintiff. It has been contended on behalf of the appellants that having regard to para, 4 of the plaint and to the writing of the landlord himself on the piper, the document is a deed of perpetual settlement and ought to have been registered and that as it is not registered, it is inadmissible in evidence.

(3.) The landlord does appear to have written on the receipt that he had made a perpetual settlement on receipt of Rs. 100 and hid settled the rent at Rs. 8. Apart from this, the document is a mere rent receipt granted by the then patwari and is followed by a series of rent receipts ranging from the years 1321 to 1328 Fasli. The lower Court has referred to the plaintiff's contention that in evidence of the settlement made with him in 1320 he got a rent receipt in that year in the pen of the patwari and signed by the proprietor himself. But he has also referred to the receipts for succeeding years and other documentary and oral evidence in coming to the conclusion that the settlement alleged by the plaintiff was established.