Sarbeswar Naik v. Rajani Kanta Chakrabarty

1. This appeal arises out of a rent suit, the point in dispute being as to the rate of rent. Both the lower Courts have held that as the rent claimed by the plaintiffs was entered in the rent roll prepared under Part 2, Ch. 10, Ben. Ten. Act, it cannot now be disputed.

2. It is contended on behalf of the appeallants that the entry was not made under Part 2, Oh. 10 but under Part 3. Prom the judgments of both the lower Courts I cannot believe that it was ever disputed in either Court that this entry was made under Part 2.

3. Both the Courts below referred to this as an ascertained fact, and the lower appellate Court commenced its judgment by saying:

“The rent was settled by a revenue officer under Part 2 Ch. 10, Ben. Ten. Act.”

4. I cannot believe that the learned District Judge would have made this statement in this form without any comment, if there had been any suggestion before him that the record had not been prepared under that part. Further, the learned pleader for the respondents has been able to show me that there are some materials from which the lower appellate Court might draw the presumption that the Record of Rights was prepared under Part 2 and not under Part 3. I am not prepared to hold that both the lower Courts were wrong in their decisions. If the record was so prepared, it is not now disputed that the decisions are right. The appeal is dismissed with costs.

V.B/R.K

5. Appeal dismissed.