MUNIAPPA CHOUDURI Vs. SINGARAVELU MUDALI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IT is argued before me that the District Munsif went in contravention of the cases Lukhee Kant Doss Chowdhry v. Sumeerooddi Tustar 21 W.R. 208 : 13 B.L.R. (F.B.) 243. and Surendra Narain Singh v. Bhai Lal Thakur 22 C. 752. inasmuch as he permitted the plaintiff to succeed on the basis of claiming profits for use and occupation, whereas the case for the plaintiff as set forth in the plaint was founded on an agreement in the terms similar to those contained in a muchilika for the preceding fasli. The agreement alleged in the plaint however is an oral agreement, and it seems to me that the District Munsif used his discretion rightly in allowing the claim on the basis that he did. He evidently considered that, though the plaintiff was unable to prove the agreement to the full extent that he alleged, yet there was permission on the part of the plaintiff to allow the defendant to be in occupation of the land and that under the circumstances, the proper rent to be charged was not what the plaint.