MAHASINGH Vs. MAN SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS second appeal is with regard to a suit brought for arrears of rent of cerbain land. The contention was that the defendant-appellants were entitled to hold that land free of rent. That, however, has been held against them in both the lower Courts, and they have now preferred a second appeal. Admittedly the plaintiff respondent is the, malguzar of the village and the appellants are in possession of the land for which the rent is claimed. Appellants, however, contend that this land is muafi khairati, and they are entitled to hold it free of rent. It is admitted that the village belonged to one Kalu Patel, that on his death there appears to have been some agreement or settlement between one Hamir Singh and Rajo Patelan, the widow of Kalu, and Jasodi, the daughter of Kalu. Mutation of the village wag effected in the name of Hamir Singh is that year and according to the agreement fields Nos. 20 and 22, of an area of 20.25 acres, in the village were granted to the daughter, Jasodi, for her maintenance as muafi khairati: The plaintiff's case was that the grant was only for the life of Jasodi, whilst the appellants contended that it was a grant free of rent to Jasodi and her descendants for as long as the malguzari remained in the family of the plaintiff.

(2.) I am of opinion that the view taken by the lower Courts is correct, and the plaintiff-respondent is entitled to demand rent from the appellants. There is no justification for the plea put forward by the appellants that their mother Jasodi was entitled to succeed to her father as his daughter nor has evidence on that point been adduced. Similarly, there is no evidence for the alleged family arrangement and no witnesses have been examined. A reference was made to the recent ruling in Sidh Gopal v. Biharilal A.I.R. 1923 All 65 about family arrangement, but in any case a family arrangement must be proved as well as pleaded, and it cannot. be presumed in the absence of any evidence.

(3.) IN that case, then, the plaintiff is clearly entitled to recover rent and the lower Courts rightly, followed the ruling in Tikaram v. Budhu [1902] 15 C.P. 9. I am of opinion that the matter has been correctly decided. There is no force in appeal. The appeal is dismissed with costs.