Mr. Ameer Ali:-

The suit which has given rise to this appeal was brought by the plain tiffs on the 28th July, 1908, in the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Ranchi under the following circumstances. The plaintiff Sri nath Roy purchased on the 15th September, 1899, in execution of a mortgage decree, Pargana Bundu, a property lying within the estate of Chota Nagpur. The second and third plaintiffs are Srinath Roy's brothers and inter ested in the purchase, whilst the fourth is an assignee of a share in the property in question. It appears that in 1895, the first three plaintiffs advanced a large sum of money to one Tikait Jagannath Roy, since deceased, who was then in possession of the property, on a mortgage of the same. The document of mortgage bears date the 2nd of August, 1895. In default of payment a suit was brought, and a decree obtained upon it in October, 1898.

The sale proclamation was issued on the 20th of July, 1899, and the sale held, as already stated, on the 15th of September, 1899. The plaintiff Srinath Roy obtained the sale certificate on the 20th of January, 1900. He claims that Pargana Bundu was the absolute estate of his mortgagor and that he is entitled to it by virtue of his purchase.

The defendant is the Zemindar of the Chota Nagpur estate, and his contention is that the property in question was a jagir tenure held by Jagannath defeasible on failure of the lineal male line of the grantee, and the plaintiffs' mortgagor having died without leaving any male issue, he has resumed the same, as he was law fully entitled to do.

In 1903 the Bengal Government directed, under Chapter X of the Bengal Tenancy Act, the prepara tion of a Record of Rights in res pect of the Chota Nagpur estate.

The Settlement Officer, Mr. Lister, in pursuance of the instructions of the Government, and in accordance with the pro visions of the Tenancy Act, instituted a careful and minute enquiry relating to the tenures and other subordinate tenancies within the Chota Nagpur estate. Section 102, Clause X, requires the settlement Officer to include among other particulars "the special conditions and incidents, if any, of the tenancy" regarding which the enquiry is being held. Mr. Lister, accordingly made in the Register of tenancies, techni cally called the Khewat, the following entry against Pargana Bundu :-

" Col. 4 :-Nature of rights - Jagir Khidmat (that is, service tenure resum able).

"Col. 5. - Resumable or not - Kabil zabti.

"Col. 11. - Remarks - ' Yeh Jagir Tekait Basdeo Bai, hasil kiya is short par ke Putradik bhog kare '

" The entry in the column of remarks is intended to mean that the tenure is Putra Putradik and derived from Basdeo Rai."

Basdeo was the grandfather of the mortgagor. It is to be noted that the words Putra Putradik denote descent in the direct male line. The entry rendered into English runs thus :- "This Jagir was ob tained by Tekait Basdeo Rai on condition of enjoyment in the di rect male line."

Section 103 (6) of the Tenancy Act provided that :-

"A certificate, signed by the Revenue Officer, stating that a record-of-rights has been finally published under this chapter, shall be conclusive evidence of such publi cation ; and every entry in a record-of-rights so published shall be presumed to be correct until the contrary is proved."

The plaintiff accordingly bro ught this suit in the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Ranchi to set aside the order of the Settle ment Officer referred to above, and to obtain a declaration that Pargana Bundu was held as an independent estate by the ancestors of his mortgagor from a time pre vious to the Permanent Settlement made by the Government with the Maharaja of Chota Nagpur, that it was incorporated as a Sikmi or dependent Taluk in such settle ment with the Maharaja merely for the payment of the revenue through him, that, the subsequent grant made by the Maharaja to Basdeo Roy referred to in the Settlement Officer's entry was not consequent upon a resumption or fresh settlement, but was a me