1. This appeal arises out of a suit for arrears of rent, the only point in dispute between the parties being the rate of rent payable. The plaintiffs alleged that the rental was Rs. 28-6-13. The contesting defendants alleged that it was Rs. 27-0-5 pies. The Munsif decided in the defendants' favour. The learned Subordinate Judge on appeal reversed that decision and decided in favour of the plaintiffs. The defendants' case is supported by the Record of Rights and also by a cess return. As regards the Record of Rights the learned Subordinate Judge has held that the presumption arising therefrom has been rebutted by the evidence of certain rent decrees. These rent decrees are evidence as to the rate of rent payable but do not operate as res judicata as held by the lower Appellate Court. As regards the road cess return the learned Subordinate Judge remarks: 'The admission in the road cess return may well be explained away.' But how it can be explained away, he does not state. The way he committed a serious error is that he treated the statement in the road cess return as an admission only. It is more than an admission under Section 20 of the Cess Act, IX of 1880. There is a statutory bar to the plaintiffs recovering rent at a higher rate than that shown in the cess return. I, therefore, hold that the lower Appellate Court has given no satisfactory reasons for reversing the decision of the Court of first instance.
2. I accordingly decree this appeal, set aside the judgment and decree of the lower Appellate Court and restore those of the Munsif.
3. The appellants will get their costs in this and- the lower Appellate Court.