LAKSHMI CHAND Vs. LILA DHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal must be decreed. The plaintiff is the respondent in this Court. He sold to the defendant-appellant certain zamindari property and became thereby an ex-proprietary tenant of certain sir lands. On the very day on which the sale-deed was executed the plaintiff executed an agreement of rent by which he agreed to pay a sum of Rs. 170 a year as the rent of the ex-proprietary holding. On foot of this agreement the purchaser made an application in the revenue Court under Section 36 of the Land Revenue Act to have a rent assessed. The Revenue Court assessed it at the same sum of Rs. 170 as the plaintiff had agreed to pay. The order was an ex parte one. The plaintiff made an attempt to have the order set aside and the case re-heard, but he failed. Thereupon he brought the suit, out of which this appeal has arisen.

(2.) The plaintiff alleged in the plaint that the kabuliyat had been obtained from him by exercise of undue influence and pressure. He also alleged that the rent fixed was much higher than the rent which could lawfully be fixed for the holding. The suit failed in the Court of first instance. The learned Munsif came to the conclusion that no case of fraud or undue influence had been made out. He was also of opinion that evidence was adduced to prove fraud of a kind other than that alleged in the plaint. The learned Subordinate Judge on appeal agreed with the Court of first instance that the plaintiff was not entitled to any relief on the ground of fraud. But he accepted the argument that the kabuliyat was void as a matter of law, the effect of it being a contravention of the provisions of Section 36 of the Land Revenue Act.

(3.) The sole question for determination in this appeal, therefore, is whether on the ground taken up by the Court below a declaratory decree could be granted in favour of the respondent.