1. The facts of the case are set out in the judgments of the lower Courts and need not be recapitulated. The only point we have to decide in this appeal is the meaning of the word 'kar' used in a document (Exhibit 11), a deed of partition and exchange. The claim of the plaintiffs in this suit is based on paragraph 10 of that document in which these words appear, 'In respect of the same the second party will not have to pay to any one any kar (?) whatsoever should any body ever recover any kar from them, then the first party should reimburse them'. The question is, whether the word kar in this sentence includes cesses as well as rent. We find in Haughton's Dictionary the meanings of this word are as taxes and revenue and also on a reference to Sen's English to Bengali Dictionary we find the word 'kar' is given as a translation of the word cess; also the road cess recoverable under the Cess Act is commonly spoken of in Bengali as Pathkar. It seems, therefore, that there is no doubt that the word kar is wide enough in its ordinary meaning to include the word cess. We think the clause 'the second party will not have to pay any kar whatsoever' means, that the second party will not have to pay either revenue or rent or any kind of taxes including road cess.
2. Our attention has been drawn on behalf of the respondents to the fast that in another paragraph of the same document reference is made to the entire kar and cesses. But we do hold that it does not necessarily follow that when the word 'kar' is used alone it cannot he held to include cess also.
3. The lower Courts differed in opinion as to the proper interpretation of the document. The interpretation we put on it is that of the First Court and not of the lower Appellate Court. The result, therefore, is that this appeal is decreed with costs. The decree of the lower Appellate Court is set aside and that of the Court of first instance restored,
4. The appellants will get their m in the lower Appellate Court also.