Ram Sahi and Others vs Mahanth Mahabir Gir and Others

Sharfjddin, J.—The suit which gave rise to the present appear was a suit brought by the landlords against their tenants for bhauli rent of the years in suit. The landlords have an interest in the village to the extent of one-third. They have made all the co-sharer landlords parties to the suit.

Issue No. 2 raised in the suit was to the following effect:

What was the quantity of produce for the landlord''s share and what is its price?

The first Court gave a decree to the plaintiffs for rent in proportion to the one-third share which the plaintiffs had in the village at Rs. 5 per bigha. The reason why this rate was adopted was that in 1309 the plaintiff Ram Sahai had filed a road-cess return on behalf of all the co-sharers in which he had stated the lands to be bhauli; but for the purpose of re-valuation he had given a certain figure in order to indicate the value of the produce and this figure was Rs. 5. It was held by both the Courts below that inasmuch as the plaintiffs in 1309 had stated that the rate was Rs. 5 per bigha they cannot be allowed to go behind their statement.

On behalf of the appellants it is contended that they ought to have been allowed to produce evidence as to the amount of produce for the years in suit but that they have not been allowed to do so It appears from the order sheet that on their behalf not a single witness was examined although they had given a list of witnesses.

It is further contended that Rs. 5 was the figure for 1309 and that since that year the prices of crops have risen and that the appellants should have been allowed to prove the actual produce for the years in suit and should have been given a decree in accordance with the produce for those years.

An issue having been framed as quoted above, I think it was necessary that the plaintiffs should have been allowed to adduce evidence in order to rebut the presumption arising from their own admission that the average rate was Rs. 5 per bigha.

For these reasons I would remand this case to the lower Appellate Court, so that an opportunity may be given to the appellants to adduce whatever evidence they wish to rebut the presumption arising from their admission that the rate was Rs. 5 per bigha.

The District Judge is requested to decide this issue after an opportunity is given to the plaintiffs to adduce their evidence as to the actual produce of the lands for the years in suit and to return the record to this Court, together with his findings on this issue, not later than the second week of July 1917.

Roe, J.

I agree. The issue will be decided by the District Judge. The evidence may be put on the record either by himself or by the Subordinate Judge.