1. This is an appeal by the plaintiff against the decision of the learned Officiating Subordinate Judge of Backergunge, dated the 24th August 1915, reversing the decision of the Munsif at Patuakhali. The Court of Wards acting on behalf of a disqualified proprietor obtained a certificate under the Public Demands Recovery-Act (I B.C.) of 1895 in respect of arrears of rent of a Howla, The tenure was thereupon brought to sale and purchased by the plaintiff. The sale was confirmed and it appears that, when the property was advertised for sale, there were, in fact, proceedings pending under Section 105 of the Bengal Tenancy Act for enhancement of rent on the ground of excess in area. The rent in the proclamation was stated to be Rs. 64. The proclamation of sale, although it has not been given in evidence in this case, apparently did not state that there were proceedings pending to enhance the rent. The rent was shortly after the sale to the plaintiff raised from Rs. 64 to Rs. 270; and, in default of the payment of the rent of Rs. 270, a certificate had been filed under the same Public Demands Recovery Act. The present suit was thereupon brought for the purpose of Petting aside or modifying that certificate. The plaintiff, as the learned Subordinate Judge found, abstained from going to the witness-box. The learned Judge was, therefore, of opinion that the plaintiff had not shown that he was not aware of the proceedings for the purpose of enhancing the rent. Obviously, it was the duty of the plaintiff to satisfy the Court that he did not know of those proceedings to enhance the rent. If he knew and bought the property with his eyes open, there is no reason why the certificate should be modified. In addition to this, not only did he abstain from going to the witness-box but he put forward a witness whom the learned Judge considered to be an untruthful witness. So far as I can gather, the learned Judge was of opinion that the plaintiff had failed to establish that he did not know about these proceedings, and the natural inference is that the Judge came to the conclusion that he knew all about them and that the present suit was merely a way to try to get hold of this large piece of property at an inadequate rent. As far as I can see, if the plaintiff had established the story that he wished us to believe, the plaintiff's right would be to have the whole thing set aside. He cannot hold the property of the ward sold by the Court of Wards at a rent of Rs. 64 when the state of facts shows that, on a proper measurement of the land that is in the possession of the tenants, he has got to pay a rent of Rs. 270. The learned Government Pleader on behalf of the defendant-respondent stated that he was quite willing, if the plaintiff so wished, to return him the sum of Rs. 170 that he had paid for the tenure at the auction sale and that the plaintiff would then receive back his money and the Court of Wards would hold on behalf of the ward this Howla or tenure. No case has been made for modifying the certificate and permitting the plaintiff to hold this large piece of land at this rent of Rs. 64 which was payable in respect of the land originally enjoyed by the tenant. The plaintiff wants to have the certificate set aside and is not in a position to accept the offer of the learned Government Pleader. The learned Subordinate Judge has found that he knew about these proceedings all along and he cannot have the certificate set aside or modified in the way he wishes. The appeal, therefore, fails and is dismissed with costs.