1. The plaintiff brought the suit nut of which this appeal arises for declaration of his debutter title to and for khas possession of certain land. His claim was principally based on an entry in the Record of Rights. The first Court held that the presumption arising from that entry had not been rebutted and decreed the suit. The lower Appellate Court on appeal by the defendants held in effect that the presumption had been rebutted and dismissed the suit. The arguments in this appeal are based on an unfortunate remark in the judgment of the Additional Judge. He says 'I consider that the Record of Rights requires good corroboration before any presumption can be said to arise therefrom.' That is not a correct statement of law. If the law provides that the presumption arises under certain circumstances, that presumption must arise independently of whether there is any corroboration or not. But reading the judgment as a whole, it is clear that the learned Judge considered the Record of Rights as a piece of evidence and considered the rebutting evidence and held on consideration of the whole that the plaintiff had failed to prove his case. The case solely depends on the amount of weight to be attached to the rebutting evidence in the case and I cannot say that the lower Appellate Court was wrong in law in holding that inspite of the entry in the Record of Rights in the plaintiff's favour his case would fail.
2. It is further argued that the finding of the lower Appellate Court on the question of limitation is wrong since the possession of the tenant, Bhagirath, must be held to be the possession of his landlord, the plaintiff, but unless we rely on the Record of Rights, it has not been proved that Bhagirath was the plaintiff's tenant. In fact this point really depends on the same consideration as the first point, that is, whether the presumption arising from the Record of Rights has or has not been rebutted.
3. The appeal fails and is dismissed with costs.