Coutts, J.:— The plaintiffs in the two suits out of which these appeals arise are tenants in mauza Dajipur of which the defendants are the Maliks. The land in dispute has been entered in the survey khatian as Gairmazrua Am. The plaintiffs claimed that it appertained to their ancestral holding consisting of some 34 bighas which are said to be covered by plots Nos. 88 and 89 in an old Batwara proceeding and they alleged that the land has been always in their possession. They therefore prayed for a declaration of their title to the disputed land as appertaining to their raiyati and for recovery of possession. The suit was contested by the defendant No. 2 who alleged that the land was the exclusive land of the Maliks which had been settled with tenants under various pattas and kabuliats. The suits were dismissed in the Court of first instance, but on appeal the suits have been decreed. The defendant No. 2 has appealed to this Court.
2. The first point urged in appeal is that the land having been recorded in the record-of-rights as Gairmazrua Am the suits cannot proceed, the general public not being made parties.
3. This is obviously an unsustainable contention, because the decree will be good as against the parties to the suit and will not affect the general public.
4. The second point urged is that the lower Appellate Court has relied to a great extent in coming to its decision on the Kheshra which was prepared in the old Batwara proceeding and it is contended that this is inadmissible in evidence. There are various authorities that the Batwara Khashra is admissible in evidence and I need only refer to a decision of this Court in Ajodhya Prasad Singh Kumar v. Kamal Narain Singh(1) in which it was held that such a Batwara Kheshra was admissible in evidence. This was a decision of a Judge of this Court sitting alone whose decision on this finding was upheld in Letters Patent appeal. The Batwara Kheshra is evidence for what it may be worth and in a case such as the present case where the entry in the Kheshra is in favour of the tenants it is, in my opinion, very good evidence and evidence on which the Court was entitled to reply.
5. The last point urged is that a partition decree (Ex. E.) which was filed on behalf of the defendant has not been considered by the Lower Appellate Court. I find, however, from the judgment of the learned Additional Subordinate Judge that he has considered this document and, although he has not discussed it at length, be has certainly considered it. In the result I see no reason to interfere with the decision of the Lower Appellate Court and I would dismiss these appeals with costs.
6. There will be only one set of costs.
7. Das, J.:— I agree.
8. Appeals dismissed.