MONMOTHA NATH MITTER Vs. ANATH BUNDHU PAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These cases were remanded to the Court below for distinct finding upon the following points with respect to the lands of Schedules ka and kharist, "whether any of the namas in Mouzah Baliari mentioned in the chalan of 1275 (Exhibit P 26) OR any of the jamas in Mouzah Bankipore mentioned in the chalan of 1276 (Exhibit P 27) can be identified with the jamas mentioned in the khatian or other papers prior to the Permanent Settlement. Whether the land of such jama can be traced and identified, Second, whether the rent or rate of rent of any such jama has remained unchanged from the time of the Permanent Settlement. Third, whether, upon the facts proved and the circumstances of the case, any presumtion arises with respect to any such jama that the rent or rate of rent has remained unchanged from the Permanent Settlement, and, if so, whether such presumption has been rebutted.

(2.) The learned Subordinate Judge has carefully considered the jamas mentioned in the chalans, Exhibits P--26 and P--27, one by one, and has come to the following conclusion: "The facts above discussed show that the small jamas of the chalans, Exhibit P--26 and P--27, cannot be identified with the lands and jamas described in Exhibits VI and V--2, the khatians of 1190 or any other papers existing before the Permanent Settlement. In the case of a few of the jamas, the areas of lands held by the tenants in 1275 did agree with the areas held by them respectively in 1190, i.e., before the Permanent Settlement. But that fast alone is not enough to enable us to trace the disputed lands of Schedules ka and kha and identify them with the lands of the jamas existing before the Permanent Settlement. The defendants did not rely upon any other documents to prove their contention. The result is, the first question raised in respect of the lands of ka and kha Schedule should be answered in the negative."

(3.) With regard to the second point, the learned Subordinate Judge has found that in not a single case the defendants succeeded in satisfactorily showing that the rent or rate of rent remained unchanged from the time of the Permanent Settlement. He has also found that no presumption arises with respect to any; jama that the rent or rate of rent has remained unchanged from the time of the Permanent Settlement, and that, in the case of some of the jamas mentioned in Exhibit P--27, the presumption, if any has been rebutted by the plaintiffs.