The question raised in this appeal is whether the land held by the Defendants is zerait or raiyati.
The lower Appellate Court has come to the conclusion that the land is zerait and one of the pieces of evidence on which that Court has relied is an ad-mission made by a kabuliyat executed by the Defendants in favour of the Plaintiffs.
A question has arisen as to whether the admission in the kabuliyat is evidence quantum valeat.
The lower Appellate Court has discussed the previous cases on the subject. One of these cases is Masudan Singh v. Goodar Nath. In that case the contention was not whether the admission was admissible as evidence but whether such admission operated as an estoppel. The learned Judges expressed a doubt on the question. But we are of opinion that no admission operates as an estoppel except under very peculiar circumstances. An admission is evidence though it may or may not be a strong piece of evidence. The learned Judges were, however, undoubtedly of opinion that an admission in a kabuliyat as to the land being zerait is evidence. The same view was taken by us in one of the unreported cases.
A conflict is pointed out by the learned vakil for the Appellant in the observations of Banerjee, J., in Sher Bahadur Sahu…Plaintiff, v. M.H Mackenzie & Ors.…Defendants,. That case, however, is clearly distinguishable. A case decided by a settlement officer is distinguishable from a case decided by a Civil Court. The last sub-section of sec. 120 only directs that a Court dealing with a question of right to private land should have regard to the rules laid down in sec. 120. The sub-section does not exclude evidence which under the Evidence Act is otherwise admissible.
The question of probative force is a question for the Court dealing with facts. All that we hold is that an admission in a kabuliyat as to the character of land is relevant evidence.
The lower Appellate Court has relied not only upon the admission but also upon other evidence. We cannot, therefore, interfere in second appeal. The appeal is accordingly dismissed with costs.
S.C.S
Appeal dismissed.