AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Wort, J.—There is no substance in this appeal and no question of law arises. But I suppose it is necessary to make one or two observations with regard to the argument advanced by the learned advocate on behalf of the appellant. The action is described by the trial Court as an action for adjudication that the disputed holding is not belagan (rent-free) but a rent-paying one paying an annual rent of Rs. 3-2.9 and that in the alternative a fair and equitable rent be fixed for the holding. The cadastral survey recorded the holding to be rent-paying. The revisional survey recorded it as rent-free.
It was dear that according to the decision in Jagdeo Narain Singh v. Baldeo Singh A.I.R.1922 .P.C. 272, the onus was on the tenant to establish some contract entitling him to hold the land rent-free. But it was argued that the Judge in the Court below has erroneously placed the onus on the defendant.
In my judgment the decision of the Judicial Committee has made it perfectly clear that the onus is on the tenant-defendant. But the point does not arise in this case for the reason that the question of the inference to be drawn from the Record of Rights is a question of fact as stated in AIR 1934 5 (Privy Council) .
"The question", said Sir John Wallis,
would necessarily depend on Inferences to be drawn from statements in the khatian, and it is well settled that such inferences are inferences of fact with which a High Court cannot interfere in second appeal.
The matter in this case is disposed of by this statement of the Judge in the Court below:
So, the entry in the revisional Record of Rights has been rebutted by convincing and conclusive evidence.
That disposes of the appeal with the exception of one point and that is the question of limitation. It is argued that the action is barred by limitation because it was not brought within six years of the publication of the Record of Rights. This is not an action, as I have already indicated by my opening observations, for setting aside the Record of Rights in an action for rent and it is not barred and cannot be barred by limitation.
The appeal is dismissed with costs. Leave to appeal is refused.