An oral settlement for agricultural purposes is valid and can be proved by evidence other than an unregistered hukumnama, as per the provisions of the Bihar Tenancy Act and established legal principles.

Raj Kishore Prasad, J.

1. This appeal, by defendant No. 1, is directed against the concurrent decisions of the courts below decreeing the suit of the plaintiff respondent.

2. The plaintiffs case was that he took settlement of the disputed land from Mangal Prasad Singh, the original Malik of the disputed land, about 25 years back, on the basis of a sada patta, on payment of nazarana, and since the settlement he was in continuous possession of the disputed land till he was forcibly dispossessed by the appellant about four years back. The plaintiffs further case was that the sada patta was lost, but he paid regularly rent, and got receipts from Man-gal Prasad, and his nephew Mathura, who was malik after the death of Mangal.

He further pleaded that there was a partition between Mathura and Jadunath, by virtue of which the disputed land fell to the share of Jadunath, defendant 2, and the plaintiff paid rent to him also regularly, but he did not grant him any receipt, and he set up defendant 1, the appellant to claim the suit land, as against the plaintiff.

3. The suit was contested by the appellant only. Her case was that she took settlement of the disputed land from Jadunath, defendant 2, on 18-3-41, under a patta, and since then she was coming in possession of the land, and she has been regularly paying rent for the same to him. The first court found that the plaintiff had been able to prove his title to the suit land by being in continuous possession over it for more than 25 years prior to the date of his alleged dispossession, and as such the plaintiff having acquired perfect title to the suit land before the alleged settlement by Jadunath in favour of the appellant, the settlement in favour of the defendant was illegal and ineffective, and the defendant had acquired no right under it. On these findings the learned Munsiff decrees the plaintiffs suit.

4. On appeal by the defendant 1, the learned Subordinate Judge affirmed the decision of the first court, and dismissed her appeal; hence the present second appeal has been filed by the defendant No. 1.

5. Mr. Balbhadra Prasad Singh, appearing for the appellant, has put forward several contentions in support of the appeal.

6. His first contention is that there is no specific finding by the lower appellate court that the plaintiff had proved his possession within 12 years of the suit, and as such the plaintiffs suit being a suit in ejectment could not be decreed. It is true that the learned Additional Subordinate Judge has not recorded any specific finding on that point, which he should have done. He has, however, observed that the plaintiff could succeed if he was able to prove that he had been dispossessed within a period of 12 years, and after that he recorded a finding to the effect that

"on a consideration of all these facts and the circumstances of the case I see no reason to differ with the learned lower court."

7. The learned Subordinate Judge has considered the entire evidence in the case of both sides, and after a, consideration of the same he did not find any reason to differ with the findings of the first court. In my opinion, therefore, his finding would amount to a finding that the plaintiff had proved his possession within 12 years of the suit, which was the definite finding of the first court. I, therefore, overrule the first contention of Mr. Singh.

8. The next contention is that the plaintiff has not filed the patta, on the basis of which the settlement was made, the first document relied upon by him was a receipt, exhibit 1, granted on behalf of Mangal, the original malik, for 1330 is., corresponding to the year 1923. The other two receipts, namely, exhibits la and Ib, were for the year 1334 and 1339 fasli respectively, corresponding to the years 1927 and 1932.

The argument is that as far as these two receipts were concerned, admittedly they were granted during the time when Mathura Singh was malik after Mangals death, and from the rehan deed, exhibit C, w