Chandiramani, J.@mdashThis is a plaintiff''s appeal against the appellate decree of Sri B.N. Cknudhri, Civil Judge, Hardoi, dated August 20. 1947.
2. The plaintiff sued the defendants for arrears of rent at the rate of Rs. 47/4 per year The defence was that they were not liable to pay any rent as they were muafidars. The suit was decreed on October 11, 1913. On appeal the suit Was remanded for retrial particularly on the issue as to whether the defendants were tenants. On retrial it was found that the defendants are tenants and the suit was accordingly decreed. On appeal the learned appellate Court has held that the defendants are tenants. but it was no'' proved that there was any agreement for rent and rent not being fixed arrears could not be decreed.
3. In this appeal it has been urged for the plaintiff that the learned court below has mis understood the case and its finding in the circumstances is erroneous and the appeal should be allowed and the suit decreed.
4. This appeal is not contested, although the defendants have received notice of the appeal. It appears that in the trial Court the plaintiff filed the settlement khasra Ex.A3 of 1864 in which the predecessors of the defendants are shown as tenants, but no rent is mentioned. In the settlement khasra for 190, Ex. A4 the rent is shown as Rs.47/4/6. The same rent is recorded in the khatauni for 1334F and again in the khetauni for 1353F. Under Suction 55 of the Land Revenue Act the rents payable by tenants are to be recorded in the annual register and tinder Section 57 all entries in the record of rights prepared in accordance with the provisions of Chapter IV in which Section 55 occurs shall be presumed to be true until the contrary is proved The learned Court below recognized the force of these documents but he thought that their force was lost because the plaintiff appellant had attempted to prove that there was an agreement about 23 years or so earlier at the rate of As. 12 per bigha. If the learned Judge had believed this evidence then he would have been justified in discarding the evidence afforded by the entries in the revenue records. But unfortunately he has not believed this evidence regarding the agreement because he says "in this state of affairs the plaintiff''s conflicting evidence cannot be relied upon and ft cannot be said that the rent has already been fixed." In these circumstances the presumption still remains and the plaintiff was entitled to a decree. Accordingly I allow this appeal, set aside the decree of the learned lower appellate Court and restore that of the trial Court. The appellant shall get his costs of the lower appellate Court and ex parte costs in this Court.
