PUNI SETHI Vs. GANGADHAR PATRO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an application in revision on behalf of the defendants against an order of the Collector of Balasore dated 4 March 1937 by which he in appeal reversed the decision of the Rent Suit Deputy Collector of Bhadrak dated 21 December 1936 by which the suit of the respondents, which was instituted for recovery of certain sum said to be due to the plaintiffs for rents, was dismissed. The plaintiffs case in short was that for two years, 1342 and 1343F, the defendants had taken 2.53 acres of land belonging to the plaintiffs in village Bahudarada, pergana Senaut on produce rent under an oral settlement in Magh 1342; the defendants did not pay the produce rent but promised to send Rs. 37-10-0 from Calcutta for 1342 Fasli but failed to carry out the promise.

(2.) In the year 1343 there was again a failure to pay the dues to the plaintiffs and when the crop of that year was harvested the plaintiff stopped its removal from the field with the result that the defendant and the plaintiff agreed to have a punchayat. The punchayat settled that the defendant should pay Rs. 35 to the plaintiff for 1342 but it did not decide anything regarding the crop of 1343. It was alleged that the defendant paid Rs. 26 to the plaintiff and removed the crop, but as the dues of the plaintiff remained unsatisfied he instituted the suit giving rise to the present proceedings. The defendant denied all the allegations of the plaintiff and asserted that he never took any oral settlement of the land in suit nor was he ever in possession thereof during the years in suit.

(3.) The trial Court held that there was no satisfactory evidence regarding the allegation of the plaintiff that the defendant had taken an oral settlement of the land, that he never promised to send Rs. 37-10-0 from Calcutta, that the story of the panchayat was a myth and that there was ho evidence which could be relied upon to prove the payment of Rs. 26. In short he held that there was no satisfactory evidence regarding any of the allegations of the plaintiff. As to the possession of the land by the defendant for the years in suit the learned Deputy Collector held that he was unable to accept the case of the plaintiff that the defendant had possession of the land as a tenant.