1. In this appeal the only question argued is whether the relationship of landlord and tenant exists between the parties. The suit out of which the appeal arises was a rent-suit and the Munsif, finding this issue against the plaintiff, dismissed the suit. On appeal, the learned Additional District Judge has come to a contrary finding and has decreed the suit. The plaintiffs relied on an entry in the Record of Rights, which showed that they had a raiyatee interest in the land in suit and that the defendant was their under-raiyat. The Munsif held that the presumption arising from this entry had been rebutted and the lower Appellate Court tame to a contrary conclusion. I am unable to hold that, in coming to this conclusion, the lower Appellate Court made an error of law. It is contended that the learned District Judge was wrong in holding that the tenancy should be presumed from the fact that the defendant continued in possession of the land after executing the estafanama. There might be some force in this contention, if the plaintiffs' case was not supported by the Resold of Rights. But with that in their favour the real issue in the case is, whether the presumption from that entry has been rebutted or not. The Munsif believed the explanation of the estafanama given by the defendant. The lower Appellate Court did not, and, if the defendant's story is disbelieved, it does not appear that the presumption has been rebutted. I accordingly dismiss this appeal with costs.