1. These four appeals arise1 out of four suits for rent. The only question in controversy is whether, according to the terms of the patta by which rent was payable partly in cash and partly in kind by delivering a certain quantity of paddy, for non-delivery of the paddy, the present market price should be recovered by the plaintiff or the price stated in the patta. After stating that the rent will be payable in cash and in paddy, the words in the patta are to this effect:
If for an unavoidable reason you are unable to pay the paddy its market price at the rate of Rs. 4 per pali should be paid. The amount is Rs. 34-5-0. The total price of the paddy together with road and public works cesses amounting to Rs. 50 should be paid according; to the kists given below and you will take a receipt after payment of the money. Then it follows:
Except on the ground that all the lands of the mahal lay fallow, you shall not pay the price of the paddy.
2. Then follow the other provisions which? it is unnecessary to mention. At the end of the document the kists are given. It is stated that the cash rent is Rs. 15-11-0 and the price of paddy is Rs. 34-5-0 making a total of Rs. 50. Lastly, different kists are given in which the amount, of Rs. 50 was to be paid. The Munsif gave a decree to the plaintiff according to the price of paddy fixed in the patta,. that is to say Rs. 84-5-0. The District Judge reversed that decision and gave the plaintiff a decree at the rate claimed, viz., the present market price of the paddy. On appeal by the defendants it is contended on their behalf that, having regard to the terms in the patta, they are not bound to pay more than the price of the paddy stated in that document. It is contended on behalf of the plaintiff-respondent that that price was fixed in the happening of one event only, that is, if for any unavoidable reason the tenant was unable to pay the value stated instead of the paddy if the whole of the land remained fallow; otherwise, the plaintiff is entitled to get the present market value of the paddy. Upon reading the entire patta we are unable to agree with the District Judge and to accept the contention on behalf of the respondent. Even if it be considered to be a suit for damages, the amount of damages is mentioned in the deed itself. That being so, we cannot say that the amount should be in lieu of the paddy at one rate if the tenant cannot deliver the paddy for any unavoidable reason and at a different rate for any other reason which the Court does not consider to be unavoidable. The question that no unavoidable reason was pleaded seems to us to be quite immaterial because it is too vague for any Court of 'justice to take cognizance of. The defendant may say 'I am too poor or other things may be said in support of his inability to pay. These are matters which cannot be taken into consideration. Where, as a matter of fact the landlord has chosen to fix the price and stated the kists in which the rent is to be paid on that basis, it must be considered that at the time the landlord thought that the highest amount that should be realized on account of the paddy was fixed under the contract. If by some chance the price of the paddy has increased subsequently, it does not seem to be right that that Contract is to be given the go by by giving the present market price to the plaintiff. In this view, the decree of the Subordinate Judge must be set aside and that of the Munsif restored with proportionate costs in both the Courts
3. This judgment will govern all the four appeals.