RAMCHANDRA PANDURANG JAHAGIRDAR Vs. YELLAVA MADAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this appeal the question is whether the document, which purports to be a true copy of a certain order, addressed by the then Inamdar of the village to the village officers, is admissible in evidence In connection with that point it is urged that the original order required registration, This question arises in connection with the point as to whether defendant No. 1 is proved to be a permanent tenant of the land in question. The case for the plaintiff in the lower Court was that defendant No. 1 was an annual tenant. Both the Courts have found that she is a permanent tenant, and it is clear that if the copy to which I have referred is admissible in evidence, the permanent tenancy is proved.

(2.) The point of registration was not urged in either of the lower Courts, and though it has been urged here, I feel Clear that the point has no merit in it. It is an order directed by the Inamdar to the village officers in which certain directions as to this land are given. It is pointed out there that the village officers are to treat this land as held by the defendant on a permanent tenure on payment of a certain rent. I am unable to hold that such a document either creates or declares any right. It only affords evidence of what the true nature of the tenancy was. The best evidence of such an order, in the absence of the order itself, would be a copy, such as the defendant No. 1 has produced in this case. It was urged in the lower Courts, and it has been argued before us, that it is Hot admissible in evidence because the original order is not a public document. It seems to me that the lower appellate Court was perfectly right in admitting the document as affording secondary evidence of the order which would be in the custody of the plaintiff; and the defendants could prove it, as the plaintiff has not produced the original. The copy was rightly admitted, and if we hold that it was properly admitted and that the original order does not require registration, the finding as to permanent tenancy must be accepted.

(3.) It has been urged that the plaintiff has a right to enhance the rent, even though the tenancy may be permanent. The claim made for higher rent in the suit was not on the footing of the tenancy being permanent, but on the footing of the tenancy being annual. There is no indication in this suit that the plaintiff contended that he had a right to enhance the rent, even though the tenancy was permanent. It is difficult to see how in view of the statement by the predecessor-in-title of the present plaintiff in the order, of which a copy has been put in, he could contend that he has a right to enhance the rent.