KHETRA MOHAN DAS Vs. BHAIRAB CHANDRA DAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In the suit out of which this appeal arises the plaintiffs sued for a declaration of their title as tenants tinder Defendants Nos. 4 to 8, and for correction of the settlement record and confirmation of their possession. Defendants Nos. 1, 2 and 3 are the persons whose names are recorded in the record-of-rights as tenants now in possession.

(2.) The plaintiffs case was that in 1287, corresponding to 1880,itheir mother took a settlement from the ijaradar of Defendants Nos. 4 to 8 and paid rent all along to the ijaradar and that on her death the plaintiffs came into possession and continued to pay rent to the ijaradar. In the record of rights prepared in 1917 Defendants Nos. 1, 2 and 3 were recorded as tenants under the Defendants Nos. 4 to 8. This entry in the record of rights had thrown a cloud on the plaintiffs title; they, therefore, brought the suit for the correction of the record of rights and confirmation of their possession after declaration of their title. The first Court decreed the plaintiffs suit. On appeal to the District Court this decision was reversed and the plaintiffs suit was entirely dismissed. The plaintiffs have appealed to this Court.

(3.) Their contentions are as follows : first of all the lower appellate Court has wrongly rejected a certain jamabandi furd. They contend that this jamabandi furd being an ancient document has proved itself under Section 90 of the Indian Evidence Act; and that if the lower appellate Court was of opinion that the document was not genuine the plaintiffs should have been given an opportunity of proving the genuineness of the document. Is it, therefore, necessary to see how the lower appellate Court has dealt with this document. The learned Subordinate Judge remarks as follows: Therefore, only the jamabandi furd (Ex. 1) is the solitary document to prove title. It was filed after the defendants filed under their hukumnama Ex. A. I have reasons to suspect the genuineness of this document. It is purported to have been granted by an ijaradar of the Rajas named Darpa Narayan, whose name appears to have been signed by the pen of one Becha Ram. There is no evidence to show that Darpa Narayan was the ijaradar add no evidence to show that Bacha Ram had the power to sign his name. Following the ruling laid down in the case of Imrit Chamar V/s. Sridhar Pandey [1912] 17 C.W.N. 108, I hold that the genuineness of this jamabandi furd (Ex. 1) cannot be presumed only from the proof of custody under Section 90, Evidence Act.