Prinsep, J.@mdashIn our opinion the Subordinate Judge sitting in appeal is clearly wrong in holding that the plaintiffs were not entitled, under any circumstances, to recover damages on account of arrears of road and public works cesses due from the defendants. The terms of Section 25 of Beng. Act X of 1871 are clear on this point, and permit the zemindar, or the holder of an estate or tenure, to recover such cesses in the same manner and under the same penalties as if the same were arrears of rent in respect of land in respect of which such sums were payable. u/s 44 of the Rent Law damages would have been payable had the claim been for arrears of rent, and, therefore, the present claim being for cesses, the defendants are liable to pay such damages.
2. It has been pressed upon us by the respondents'' pleader, that we ought to remand the case to the lower Appellate Court for a finding as to the amount at which damages should be assessed; but the terms of the decision of the first Court, which have not been displaced in any way by the judgment of the lower Appellate Court, coupled with the admission of the defendants in their written statement, that, on a previous occasion, they were made by this Court to pay damages on account of arrears of the very same cesses, leave no doubt in our minds that the order of the first Court was perfectly correct, and that we should not be justified in putting the parties to the expense of further proceedings.
3. We set aside the order of the lower Appellate Court, restore that of the Munsif, and direct that the defendants do pay costs both of this Court and of the lower Appellate Court.
