(1.) This is civil revision by the defendant in Money Suit No. 39 of 1941 in the file of the Subordinate Judge of Dhanbad. The suit is one for recovery of rents in respect of certain mining rights in mauza Sabaldi in pergana Jharia, district Manbhum. The plaintiffs claim is based upon a kabuliat executed by one Hardayal Singh in favour of the predecessors-in-interest of the plaintiffs on 12-6-1918 reserving the annual rent of Rs. 972/-. The defendant's liability for payment of rent is based upon certain allegations of fact of which the most relevant ones for the purposes of this civil revision are that the lessee of the aforesaid kabuliat was a farzidar of the defendant, that in pursuance of this transaction and on account of the relationship of landlord and tenant, there had been some payments of rent towards the rent reserved in the kabuliat by the defendant's estate, and, that therefore, the defendant is liable to pay the arrears claimed in the suit. The defendant denied all the necessary allegations, namely that Hardayal was their farzidar and that either the defendant or the defendant's estate ever made any payment knowingly towards the rent reserved in the kabuliat. The defendant further stated that the kabuliat, if any, was entered into under mutual mistake of the parties concerned, and, therefore, it was not operative. It was also stated by the defendant in his written statement that the underground rights in respect of which the rent was claimed did not lay in the plaintiffs or their predecessors-in- interest, it having always been retained by the proprietors as a part of their proprietary interest, and the estate that was carved out in favour of the plaintiffs predecessors-in-interest did not carry any underground rights.
(2.) At first the suit was instituted by some of the plaintiffs who owned seven annas and odd interest in the mouza. The other cosharers had been made pro forma defendants who have since been transposed to the category of plaintiffs and after this transposition the defendant was called upon to file a supplementary or additional written statement which has been done. But nothing turns upon that.
(3.) In view of the pleadings of the parties a set of issues had been framed by the Subordinate Judge on 30 May 1941, of which those that are relevant for the purposes of this revision are: Issue No. 3: "Had the Sikhars the alleged predecessor in interest of the plaintiff any right, title or interest in the underground of mouza Sabaldi?", Issue No. 4; "Is the allegation of a benami lease as stated in paras. 2 and 3 of the plaint true? Is there relationship of lessor and lessee between the plaintiff and the defendant? Are the terms of the aforesaid lease binding upon the defendant or enforceable against him?, No. 6: "Is the allegation of the payment of a sum of Rs. 2500 by the defendant or of subsequent payment of the Receiver true? Was there exercise of undue influence upon the defendant's staff or Receiver or fraud and misrepresentation in the matter of such payment, if any, as alleged in the written statement?.