Chaman Mahto vs Ganesh Mahto and Others

Das, J.—In this suit the plaintiff claimed to re cover possession of plot No. 770 which is recorded in the Record of Rights as part of the ancestral holding of the defendants. The plaintiff sues upon a lease executed in his favour by the landlords on 8th May, 1922. The lower Appellate Court rightly took the view that having regard to the lease it was for the defendants to establish that plot No. 770 was part of their ancestral holding. Having discussed the evidence he has come to the conclusion that the defendants have failed to establish their case, but the learned Judge has not referred to the Record of Rights which no doubt is a piece of evidence but is an important piece of evidence. Had the learned Judge realised that the Record of Rights was in favour of the defendants, I do not know what his conclusion would have been in the case.

I would allow the appeal, set aside the judgment and the decree passed by the Court below and remand the case to that Court for disposal according to law. Costs will abide the result and will be disposed of by the learned Subordinate Judge.