BALSHET MAHADSHET YEKAWDE Vs. HARI BABURAO RANE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiff sued to recover possession of the suit property alleging that the same belonged to him, having been rented by the defendant under a rent-note dated May 5, 1913. The defendant raised various defences to which I am not going to refer in detail. It is sufficient to say in passing that they did defendant little credit, and only raised a prejudice against him in the Courts. In the Trial Court he attempted to show that the lavanchitti, Ex. 12, was obtained by misrepresentation, but failed to prove that. So it was held that he was bound by the lavanchitti, and that he forfeited his occupancy rights by having failed to pay rent for five years.

(2.) It cannot be disputed that the defend-ant s-name was in the bot-khat as an occupancy tenant, paying rent according to the appraisement. That would give the plaintiff Mot about eight maunds of paddy annually. According to the lease the tenant had to give six maunds and was not liable to enhancement. But the1 Judge omitted to notice that the defendant had to pay assessment, and as the cash payment for six maunds was lis. 12, and the assessment was Rs. 4-0-6, it seems obvious that the rent payable under the lavanchitti, taken together with the assessment, was practically the same as the defendant had to pay under the bot- khat. The Trial Judge gave the plaintiff a decree directing that the defendant should deliver possession of the land described in the plaint, and pay Rs. 72 as rent for the six years in arrears. He further directed an inquiry with regard to mesne profits.

(3.) In appeal the Judge said that the only point was whether the lavanchitti had been fraudulently obtained by the plaintiff as alleged by defendant. He found that issue in the negative, and agreed in other respects with the Trial Court. Only he thought that as plaintiff has taken Rs. 100 from the tenant when the lavanchitti was passed, the plaintiff ought to pay back that sum before taking possession.