Walmsley, J.@mdashThe suit out of which this appeal arises was brought by the plaintiff against his putnidars for a declaration that he was entitled
to khas possession of some chakran lands which had been resumed or, in the alternative, for a declaration that the putnidars must pay him rent at
the rate of Rs. 3 per bigha. Both the lower Courts dismissed the plaintiff''s claim for khas possession, and with regard to his claim for rent, they
limited him to the sum which the Zemindar bad to pay to the chowkidari fund and cesses. The plaintiff has preferred an appeal to this Court. So far
as his original prayer for khas possession is concerned, the case of Ranjit Singh v. Kali Dasi Debi 40 Ind. Cas. 981 : 21 C.W.N. 609 : 25
C.L.J.499 : 32 M.L.J. 565 : 15 A.L.J. 390 : 19 Bom. L.R. 462 : 2 P.L.W. 1 : (1917) M.W.N. 459 : 6 L.W. 101 44 841 : 22 M.L.T. 489 : 44
I.A. 117 (P.C) is conclusive against him. With regard to his other claim, the Courts below proceeded, first, on the wordings of the Pattahs granted
to the putnidars and, secondly, on the fact that it was the putnidars who enjoyed the. services of the chowkidars prior to the resumption. The
Pattahs have-been placed before us and the passages which relate to the matter of the chowkidari chakran lands and the contingency of
resumption have been discussed in detail. It appears to me that the Courts below have put a right interpretation upon the words used in those
Pattahs, and on that ground alone I think that the Zemindar''s claim cannot be sustained. The farther fact that it was the putnidars who were
enjoying the services of the chowkidars makes it even more impossible to allow the Zemindar more than has been awarded to him. On these
grounds I think that the appeal should be dismissed with costs.
Pantos, J.
2. I agree