BIBI AHMADI BEGAM Vs. DHAN SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal and the connected appeals, Nos. 1008-1014, are very similar in facts. The plaintiff-appellant is the same. The defendants-respondents are different. The appeals have arisen from suits for recovery of arrears of rent instituted by the plaintiff-appellant, against the several defendants-respondents. The point to be decided is the same in all these cases and the judgment in this case will govern the remaining, appeals.

(2.) It appears that the plaintiff-appellant is the landholder under whom the several defendants-respondents held land under leases for a term of seven years. The terms were to expire with 1325 Fasli. Settlement operations began in the village and these were to come into effect from 1326 Fasli. During the course of the settlement operations in the year 1323 Fasli tenants were brought in to examine the entries that were being made in the record-of-rights and to attest the same in case they had no objection to offer. In the course of these proceedings the present respondent and the respondents in the other cases agreed to a certain rent being recorded in respect of their respective holdings. In the present case, Dhan Singh, the respondent, agreed that his rent should be recorded as Rs. 119- 9-3 As a matter of fact, he was paying in 1323 Fasli (and for the matter of fact he paid during the term of the lease the same rent) the rent of Rs. 96-2-3. The result was that as a matter of fact the tenants attested to a rent which they were not actually paying but attested to a rent as to which it is said they agreed that they would pay the same at a future date; namely from 1326 Fasli; the term of the lease expiring with the year 1325 Fasli. The plaintiff's suit relates to the years 1326-28 Fasli and she claims rent at the enhanced rate of Rs. 119-6-3. The tenant In this case contends that the rent payable is Rs. 96-2-3 and that he is not liable to pay anything more. We have to accept the finding of fact that the tenant actually agreed to pay the enhanced rent by attesting this rent under Section 54, Land Revenue Act. The question Is whether this agreement is binding on the tenant in view of the fact that for an agreement to pay an enhanced rent a registered document is necessary under Section 47, Agra Tenancy Act.

(3.) The provision of Section 57, Land Revenue Act is that all entries in the record of rights prepared in accordance with Ch. 4, Land Revenue Act shall be presumed to be true until the contrary is proved. It is urged that the presumption should be raised that the entry is correct. It is however an admitted fact that the rent recorded was not the rent that was being actually paid by the tenants. Under Section 55, Land Revenue Act, one of the things to be recorded in the register of persons cultivating or otherwise occupying the land is the rent payable by him. "Rent payable by a tenant" can mean only the rent that is actually payable by him at the date of the making of the record and not the rent which may have been agreed to be paid at a future data. This is the natural interpretation of the expression. That being so it is abundantly clear that the record is wrong and the presumption of law has been rebutted. The question then remains whether the agreement entered into in 1323 Fasli would be binding on the tenant although it is not registered. There can be no doubt that in 1323 Fasli all the tenants holding under leases were non occupancy tenants. Section 47, Agra Tenancy Act, therefore applies with full force. I agree with the Court below that the agreement relied on by the plaintiff-appellant cannot be enforced.