P.C. Banerji, J.
1. This was a suit to eject the defendants from certain houses which the plaintiff claimed to be his property and in regard to which he alleged - that the defendants were his tenants but had denied his title. The defendants stated that the property did not belong to the plaintiff, that they were never the tenants of the plaintiff. In support of his claim the plaintiff produced a kirayanama, i.e., an agreement to pay rent, dated the 29th July 1881. This document was produced along with the plaint. The suit was finally fixed for hearing on the 15th of June 1911, the previous date fixed for hearing being the 8th of May 1911, but it was dismissed for default of appearance. On that date the document was not 30 years old. The suit was restored but was again dismissed for default of appearance. This dismissal was subsequently set aside and the case was heard on the merits. The plaintiff examined witnesses to prove the document. The Court of first instance apparently did not believe the witnesses, because it relied upon the presumption which arises under Section 90 of the Evidence Act in respect of a document more than 30 years old. It accordingly decreed the claim. On appeal the lower Appellate Court set aside the decree of the Court of first instance upon the findings that the plaintiff had failed to prove the title of himself and his predecessor in respect of the property in suit, that the kirayanama had not been proved to be genuine and that it had not been proved that the defendant ever paid rent to the plaintiff. The learned Subordinate Judge disbelieved the whole of the plaintiff's evidence.
2. It is contended in this second appeal that the lower Appellate Court ought to have presumed the document to be genuine under Section 90 of the Evidence Act. Under that section the Court has a discretion, In this case, as stated above; when the document was produced it was not 30 years old. Furthermore the plaintiff brought forward evidence to prove it and that evidence has been disbelieved by the lower Appellate Court. Under these circumstances that Court was justified in not presuming the document to be genuine simply because it purported to be 30 years old at the time when the case was tried and the evidence was recorded. Besides this, the findings of the lower Appellate Court to which I have referred above are adverse to the plaintiff. They may be right or they may be wrong, but being findings of fact, are binding on this Court in second appeal.
3. This appeal, therefore, fails and is dismissed with costs.