UPENDRA NATH CHATTOPADHYA Vs. RADHA GOVINDA BANDOPADHYAY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These appeals arise out of a decision of the District Judge of Bankurah reversing the decision of the Assistant Settlement Officer of the same place. The appeals arise out of proceedings under Secs.105 and 105-A of the Bengal Tenancy Act. The entry in the Record of Eights was that the lands in question were not rent-free tenures, but were liable to pay rent. The defendants contended that the lands in fact were rent-free and the application was dismissed by the Judge in the first Court who held that the tenures were rent-free tenures.

(2.) Three points have been urged in this appeal on behalf of the appellants. Firstly, it is said that the District Judge was wrong in relying on certain evidence namely, a chitta and jamabandi prepared in connexion with the resumption proceedings in 1843, but prepared before such resumption proceedings; Secondly, it is said that the appellate Court has not considered the presumption which arises from the fact that there is no evidence that rent has ever been paid in respect of these lands. Thirdly, it is said that the question of onus has not been properly considered by the lower appellate Court.

(3.) Now, as I have already stated, the first point relates to the chitta and the jamabandi. The resumption proceedings are not in evidence and in my opinion that being so the chitta and jamabandi should not have been considered by the Court below. That is in accordance with the decision in Ram Chander Sao V/s. Bunsee dhur Naik [1883] 9 Cal. 741. The head-note is as follows: Chittas made by Government for its own private use are nothing more than documents prepared for the information of the Collector and not evidence against private persons for the purpose of proving that the lands described therein are or are not of a particular character or tenure.