1. This is an appeal by the plaintiff from a decision of the learned Subordinate Judge of Jessore, dated the 12th August 1915, affirming a decision of the Munsif of the same place. The plaintiff brought the suit to recover rent for the years 1313 to 1316 B.S. He sued as a 5-annas 4-pies co-sharer and he alleged that the defendants had a holding of which the rent was Rs. 17. The estate in which the plaintiff was a co-sharer bore tauzi No. 250 of the Jessore Collectorate. The plaintiff is a person who has purchased this share in the month of September 1906. In support of his claim the plaintiff gave in evidence a decree obtained by another co-sharer also of a 5-annas 4-pies share in which it was found that the defendants had a holding in the estate of which the Tauzi number was 250 of the Jessore Collectorate, and that the rent of that holding was Rs. 17 per annum. It is quite clear that to prove these facts the decree in the other suit was a relevant document. There cannot be any doubt about it whether the decree was by a predecessor of the plaintiff or by a stranger, under the provisions of the Indian Evidence Act that decree is admissible and, no doubt, it is an important document. The learned Judge in the primary Court thought that the decree was not admissible at all. The learned Judge in the lower Appellate Court held that the decree could only be given in evidence if the plaintiff could prove that the person -who had obtained it was his co-sharer. What I understand the learned Judge meant is that the plaintiff had got to prove that Jogendra, i.e., the person who had obtained the decree and the present plaintiff were co-sharers in the estate at one and the same time and that otherwise the docu- ment would not be admissible in evidence. That, I do not agree, was the proper view at all. This document was obviously, admissible under Section 13 of the Indian Evidence Act for the purpose of showing that the defendants held a holding in this estate Tauzi No. 250 and that the rent of the tholding was Rs. 17. The case must, therefore, go back to the lower Appellate Court to have the appeal re-heard after due attention being given to the decree obtained by Jogendra. Costs of this appeal and of the lower Appellate Court will abide the result of the re-hearing by the learned Subordinate Judge.
2. I agree that the decree is admissible in evidence and the case must, therefore, go back.