Skip to content


Nirod Krishna Ghose and ors. Vs. Maharaja Bahadur Sir Produt Kumar Tagore - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectProperty
CourtKolkata
Decided On
Judge
Reported in32Ind.Cas.794
AppellantNirod Krishna Ghose and ors.
RespondentMaharaja Bahadur Sir Produt Kumar Tagore
Cases ReferredDukha Mandal v. Grant
Excerpt:
bengal tenancy act (viii of 1885), sections 50 and 105 - proceedings under section 105--presumption of fixity of rent, rebuttal of--enhancement, liability for--jama wasilbaki papers of more than 70 years, admissibility of--genuineness, presumption of--evidence act (i of 1872), sections 90 and 34. - .....for settlement of fair and equitable rent, the tenants relied upon receipts for 20 years to show uniform payment of rent as a basis for the presumption under section 50 of the bengal tenancy act. the landlord adduced evidence of jama wasilbaki papers more than 70 years old, and the lower appellate court, upon a consideration of these papers with the other evidence, has held that they have the effect of rebutting the said presumption raised by the proof of uniform payment of rent for 20 years.2. it is contended that these papers were not admissible as independent evidence and that in any case under section 34 of the act they could not be relied upon as imposing a liability to enhancement upon the rent paid by the defendants. in the first place the papers are more than 70 years old and.....
Judgment:

1. In a proceeding under Section 105 of the Bengal Tenancy Act, for settlement of fair and equitable rent, the tenants relied upon receipts for 20 years to show uniform payment of rent as a basis for the presumption under Section 50 of the Bengal Tenancy Act. The landlord adduced evidence of jama wasilbaki papers more than 70 years old, and the lower Appellate Court, upon a consideration of these papers with the other evidence, has held that they have the effect of rebutting the said presumption raised by the proof of uniform payment of rent for 20 years.

2. It is contended that these papers were not admissible as independent evidence and that in any case under Section 34 of the Act they could not be relied upon as imposing a liability to enhancement upon the rent paid by the defendants. In the first place the papers are more than 70 years old and their genuineness can be presumed under Section 90 of the Evidence Act and in the second place, they cover a very long period and the lower Court was within its rights in believing them to be genuine. The case relied upon by the lower Appellate Court, Dukha Mandal v. Grant 16 Ind. Cas. 467; 16 C.L.J. 24, is in point and we think that it is not right to say that these papers have the effect of imposing any liability upon the tenants. Their effect is to rebut the presumption under Section 50 of the Bengal Tenancy Act by showing that previous to the 20 years for which uniform payment of rent has been shown, there was realisation, of different rates of rent. The liability to enhancement is imposed not by these papers but by the law which, in the absence of the presumption under Section 50 or upon rebuttal of that presumption, imposes a liability to enhancement upon tenants.

3. In this view of the case, we think there is no substance in this appeal. We dismiss it with costs.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //