NILMADHAB MAHAPATRA Vs. KESHAB LAL MAHAPATRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this ease the appeal is by one of the defendants, defendant No. 2, and the action was brought for rent; and the sole matter in dispute is whether the rent in respect of the paddy is payable at the price which is mentioned in the contract or whether the plaintiff is entitled to get that rent at the market rate at the time the suit was instituted.

(2.) Now, but for the fact that three learned Judges have decided this matter in a way contrary to the one in which I am going to decide it, I really should not have wished to say anything except that this appeal ought to be allowed. But out of deference to the learned Judges, I think it is necessary for me to say one or two words.

(3.) In my opinion this matter must depend upon the construction of the contract, and the construction of the contract only; we have no right to make any speculation as to whether certain passages were entered in the contract for some motive which is not apparent on the contract itself; for instance, it has been said that this power to substitute a money payment for the delivery of paddy and the mention of. the Rs. 24 have been put in for the purpose of registration. There is not a word about it in the contract and, if we were to act upon an assumption of this kind, we would simply enter upon speculation. The contract, in my opinion, is too plain to need any explanation. It gives a right to the defendant to pay to the plaintiff rent partly in money and partly in paddy if he likes. On the other hand, if he does not like to deliver paddy, he can pay the rent altogether in money, and the contract provides the rate in that case. As I have said, if it were not for the fact that there has been a decision of no less than three learned Judges, I should have said that the matter is too plain for argument.