Mohamad Akram, J.
1. This is an appeal by the plaintiffs against the decision of the District Judge of Jessore confirming the decision of the Munsif of Magura in a suit for recovery of arrears of rent from 1340 to 1343 B.S. at a jama of Rs. 20-6-0 per year and for cesses and damages. The case of the plaintiffs was that they were the zemindars, that under them were the putnidars and that under the putnidars were the darputnidars, the immediate landlords of the holding bearing the jama of Rs. 20-6-0 aforesaid. That the patnidars auction-purchased the darputni interest in November 1927 and the zamindars auction-purchased the patni interest in May 1933; that the zamindars thus became the direct landlords of the aforesaid holding; that the holding comprised the lands of khatian No. 228 only of mouza Bhawanipur for which the rent claimed had fallen into arrears as aforesaid. Defendants 8, 15, 16 and 17 alone contested the suit and their plea inter alia was that there was only one holding bearing a jama of Rs. 20-6-0 not only for the khatian No. 228 of mouza Bhawanipur but also for khatian No. 260 of mouza Balavadrapur and for the khatian No. 496 of mouza Jasamantapur and that there was no arrears of rent due. The learned Munsif found that the three khatians constituted one jama as alleged, by the defendants but that the rent for the year 1340 B.S. only had been paid and upon those findings he decreed the suit partially.
2. The plaintiffs thereupon appealed but without success. They then brought the present second appeal to this Court. No one appears for the respondents. The only point that has been raised before me on behalf of the appellants is that the Courts below committed an error of law in admitting two documents, Exs. C and D into evidence and in relying upon the same. Ex. C is a certified copy from the register of rent suits and contains various entries in a tabular form. This register, in my opinion, would be admissible under Section 35, Evidence Act, as written by a public servant in the discharge of his official duty. The question, however, is whether the entry in it made in connexion with rent suit No. 1390 of 1930 instituted by the darputnidars and others against the predecessor-in-interest of the contesting defendant containing the following particulars: 'For arrears of rents, cesses, damages and interests of a jama of Rupees 20-6-0 in village Bhawanipur, etc. for the years 1333-34 B.B.S. 148, Ben. Ten. Act, khatians Nos. 228, 496, and 260,' was admissible in evidence on behalf of the defendant. In my opinion, the above statement made by the darputnidar in 1930 subsequent to the auction sale of the darputni interest in 1927 could not be treated as relevant admission and proved against the present plaintiff under Section 21(1), Evidence Act, and the Court below therefore should have excluded from its consideration this entry in Ex. C while deciding the case.
3. As regards Ex. D, it is a sale certificate showing the lands of the tenancy as lying in Kismat Sarabaria and village Bhawanipur. This sale certificate was granted on 24th June 1921 under Order 21, Rule 94, Civil P.C., to one Adiluddi (the predecessor-in-interest of the contesting defendants) in connexion with his auction purchase in execution of his own money decree against the former tenants of the land, namely the Ghoses, and it was tendered in evidence by the defendants in support of their claim regarding the lands comprised in the tenancy. In my opinion, this document was rightly admitted in evidence under Section 13, Evidence Act, as a transaction by which the right to possession of certain plot of land as constituting the tenancy lands was recognized. I am not impressed by the argument that Section 18A, Ben. Ten. Act, excludes the reception of this document in evidence. A sale certificate cannot be treated as an instrument of transfer by the tenant under that Section. The objection raised by the appellants in regard to the admissibility of Ex. D therefore fails. In view of the decision in Indu Bhusan Basu v. Jatindra Nath ('28) 32 C.W.N. 244, am not disposed to give effect to the suggestion that the question of the lands comprised within the tenancy may be kept open between the parties. Apart from the entry in Ex. C to which objection is taken, I find there are other evidences on the record which are sufficient to support the decision of the Court below. I do not think it necessary therefore to send back the case for a rehearing of the appeal. I accordingly dismiss this appeal and affirm the judgment and decree of the Court below. As there is no appearance on behalf of the respondents there will be no order for costs in this appeal.