1. The question involved in these oases is whether the landlord is entitled to additional rent for additional area.
2. The plaintiff proved that there was measurement in 1276 and adduced evidence to show what the standard of measurement was in that year. The learned Special Judge, however, has disbelieved that evidence.
3. It is contended before as that the present standard of measurement ought to have been presumed to be the standard in use in 1276, and reliance is placed upon the judgment of Mookerjee, J., in the case of Ishan Chandra Mitter v. Raja Ramranjan Chakarbutty 2 C.L.J. 125 at p. 132, It is unnecessary to consider the effect of the passage in the judgment of Mookerjee, J., at page 132 in that case, because in the present case the learned Special Judge finds that the standard of measurement set up on behalf of the plaintiff would be inconsistent with the kabuliyat upon which the suit is based; and he points out several circumstances showing that the standard of measurement set up could not be correct.
4. We are, therefore, unable to hold that the learned Special Judge has committed an error of law in holding that the plaintiff has failed to prove that the defendants were holding any land in excess of the area for which they were paying rent.
5. It may be mentioned that no case of encroachment beyond the boundaries mentioned in the lease was made in the plaint nor found by the Court below.
6. In the circumstances, the appeals must fail and ate dismissed with costs.