TARAK CHANDRA CHUCKERBUTTY Vs. PRASANNA KUMAR SAHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is preferred by the defendants. They are the owners of a sikmi taluk named Kashi Chandra Chakerbarty, and in the record-of-rights recently published the rent of the taluk was stated to be not liable to enhancement. The landlord, however, challenged the accuracy of this entry and made an application before the Settlement Officer for enhancement of the rent under the provisions of Section 7 of the Bengal Tenancy Act. The Settlement Officer found that the landlord had failed to rebut the presumptions arising from the entry in the record-of-rights and from payment of an unvarying rent for 20 years and dismissed the application. The landlord appealed and the learned Judge reversed the decision of the first Court : he based his finding on two pieces of evidence, first, the absence of the taluk in a return submitted by the zemindar in 1242 B.S. and second, the name of the taluk, the name being that of the father of the appellants.

(2.) So far as the zemindar's return is concerned, the position is rather obscure. Returns were prescribed by Section 48 of Reg. VIII of 1793, and also by Section 15 of Reg. VII of 1799, and it is possible that the document produced in this case was prepared in accordance with one or other of those sections, though why it should have been prepared in 1242 B.S. is not explained. Assuming, however, that the return was made under one or other of those sections, other questions arise. The first is whether the return can be received in evidence at all, the second is whether the nature of the requirements warrants any inference based on the absence of the sikmi in the return, and the third is whether in any event the defendants can be bound by such an inference.

(3.) In the absence of further information about this particular return, I feel unwilling to come to any decision as to whether it could properly be received in evidence; and it is not necessary that I should do so. It is the same with the second objection. Regarding the third objection, however, I feel no doubt. Sanctity may attach to an old document, but the return before us was prepared by the landlord alone without any opportunity being given to the tenants of admitting its correctness. It is possible of course that the defendants taluk was not in existence then, so that the return could not contain an admission of accuracy by their predecessors, but that explanation cannot be accepted until it is shown that the return contains an exhaustive catalogue of the subordinate interests in the estate, and that the accuracy of the catalogue is admitted by the owners of those interests. It is not suggested that in this case the return can pass such a test. I think therefore that the absence of the taluk in the return certainly cannot bind the defendants, and that, if it is evidence at all, it is of very slight weight.