1. In the suit out of which this appeal has arisen the plaintiff sued for rent for two years, 1281 and 1882 M.E. at the rate of 78 aris of paddy. He valued the paddy at 1 1/4 aris per rupee and laid his claim at Rs. 160-14. The contention of the defendant was that the jama was a money one of Rs. 39 only and that that was taken as the fixed price of 78 aris of paddy.
2. The first Court decreed the plaintiff's suit in full holding that the plaintiff was entitled to get the price of 71 aris of paddy a year at the rate of 1 aris per rupee. The defendant appealed to the District Court and the learned District Judge held on a construction of the kabuliyat that the plaintiff was not entitled to recover rent at more than Rs. 39 per annum with cess and damages at 25 per cent.
3. The plaintiff has appealed to this Court and the contention he puts forward is that he is entitled on a proper construction of the kabuliyat to recover rent at the rate of 78 aris of paddy a year at the present market rate. It will be seen that this case depends entirely on the proper construction of the kabuliyat. There are a number of decisions of this Court in which similar cases have been dealt with. It may be taken that the consensus opinions of the learned Judges who decided those cases is that each case depends upon the particular terms of the particular kabuliyat and that no hard and fast rule can be laid down in these cases. Therefore, it would serve no useful purpose to refer to any of the numerous decisions on the point. The kabuliyat states as follows:
As you have executed istamrari kabuliyat for bhag paddy and have prayed for getting patta, I do execute this patta, that in lieu of the prica of Rs. 39 per year as decribed above with respect to the laid you would be liable to deliver within the moth of Magh every year at my house 78 aria of paddy.
4. The learned Judge considering this kabuliyat has come to the conclusion that the rent fixed was really a money-rent, namely, Rs. 39 par annum, and that as a concession the tenant was allowed to pay this rent in kind. After a careful consideration of the kabuliyat I am not prepared to say that the view taken by the learned District Judge is wrong. The concluding words of the patta are:
If you do not deliver then 'I shall be entitled to realize the same with interest and damages at the rate of 4 annas par rupee.
5. It does not state that 'I shall be entitled to realize paddy,' but uses the expression 'the same' which could possibly refer to the money-rent, and the fact that it is stated 'with interest and damages at the rate of 4 annas per rupee' would lend some force to the contention that it was money-rent; otherwise, it seems to me it would have been stated that 'with interest and damages calculated at so tinny seers per aris'.
6. I am not prepared to say that the construction put upon the kabuliyat by the learned District Judge is wrong.
7. The appeal, therefore, fails and is dismissed with costs.
8. I agree. To my mind this appeal presents no difficulty. The question is whether the amount of rent payable was the market price of 78 aris of paddy at the time when the aris of paddy should have been delivered, or Rs. 39, the rent which the defendant says was fixed by the patta. Bash case must be determind having regard to the terms under which the tenant holds the land. In this case the tenant holds under a patta in which it is provided that
I do execute this patta that in lieu of the1 price of Bs, 39 par year as described above with respect to the laid you would be liable to deliver with the month of Magh every year at my house 78 aris of paddy of good quality, ripe, dry and unmixed with refuse and measured by any ari of 16 seers....If you do not deliver than I shall be entitled to realize the same with interest and damages at the rate of 4 annas par rupee.
9. At the beginning of the document it is stated : 'Bhag paddy fixed 78 aris; price Rs. 39.' As a matter of construction the learned vakil for the appellant contends that the proper inference to be-drawn from the use of those latter words in the patta is that the rent should be in kind, namely, 78 aris of paddy, and that reference to Rs. 39 is made merely for the purpose of complying with the rules relating to the stamping and registration of documents.
10. I agree with the view expressed by Mr. Justice Woodroffe in the case of Blpro Charan Majhi v. Suchand Roy Chowdhury  12 C.L.J. 595 where, in considering the terms of a document almost identical with those before us, the learned Judge stated that if the price (in this case Rs. 39) was inserted merely for registration purpose it is strange that it should be found as representing the amount fixed for the rent in the body of the patta. In my opinion it is clear from the language used that this was a holding at a money rent of Rs. 39 payable in paddy. As there has been a failure to deliver the paddy in accordance with the contract the plaintiff landlord is entitled to recover the arrears of rent at the rate fixed, namely, Rs. 39 a year.
11. I agree that the appeal should be dismissed with costs.