MOHIT TEWARI Vs. RAM NARAIN DUBE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) There is no substance in this appeal and no question of law arises. But I suppose it is necessary to make one or two observations with regard to the argument advanced by the learned advocate on behalf of the appellant. The action is described by the trial Court as an action for adjudication that the disputed holding is not belagan (rent-free) but a rent-paying one paying an annual rent of Rs. 3-2.9 and that in the alternative a fair and equitable rent be fixed for the holding. The cadastral survey recorded the holding to be rent-paying. The revisional survey recorded it as rent-free.

(2.) It was dear that according to the decision in Jagdeo Narain Singh V/s. Baldeo Singh A.I.R.1922 .P.C. 272, the onus was on the tenant to establish some contract entitling him to hold the land rent-free. But it was argued that the Judge in the Court below has erroneously placed the onus on the defendant.

(3.) In my judgment the decision of the Judicial Committee has made it perfectly clear that the onus is on the tenant-defendant. But the point does not arise in this case for the reason that the question of the inference to be drawn from the Record of Rights is a question of fact as stated in Anup Mahto V/s. Mita Dusadh .