1. This was a suit for recovery of rent of a certain plot of land settled with the defendant. The defendant resisted the suit by alleging that the possession of the land settled had been interfered with by the appellant, and that therefore the plaintiff was not entitled to receive the rent during the continuance of this interference.
2. Both the Courts below gave effect to the contention of the defendant and dismissed the suit.
3. The learned vakil appearing on behalf of the appellant has contended that the Courts below are wrong in coming to the conclusion that the appellant's inter, reference with the fishing by the defendant amounted to dispossession. To begin with, this question does not arise on the finding of the lower appellate Court that the accumulation of water on the land was doe to the act of the appellants, and but for their action the lands would be in a fit condition for cultivation by the tenants.
4. Therefore that by itself is an interference with the rights of the defendant which would entitle the latter to resist the action of the plaintiff for rent. But apart from that there being no written lease on the record the settlement of the land in my opinion carried with it the right to fish on the land when there was water on it. No case has been cited before me for the contrary proposition; in fact a reference to the decision of the Judicial Committee in the case of Forbes v. Mecr Mahomed Hossein(1) will show that the settlement of land carries with it the, right to fish when water is on that land. But as I have already said, leaving this question aside, on the finding of the lower appellate Court the accumulation of water on the land was due entirely to the wrongful act of the plaintiffs which amounted to an interference with the possession of the defendant. That being so this appeal must be dismissed with costs.
V.S/R.K
5. Appeal dismissed.