1. The decision of the District Judge can only be supported on the view that he intended to find as a fact that an implied contract to go on paying the Ayan rate existed between the landlord and the tenants. But we cannot think that the District Judge found anything of the sort; for (1) he does not specifically say so, (2) no such contract was pleaded and (3) not a single patta was produced on the defendants side to support such a plea.

2. The failure to produce a single patta was especially significant in view of the fact that the single patta (Exhibit D) produced by the plaintiff (or was it a muchilika as the Head Assistant Collector found?) contained an express clause reserving the right of the then landlord to levy a crop-war rate. Even if there had been a finding as to an implied contract in favour of the tenants it would have been necessary to determine the further question how far such contract was binding on the present landlord. Vide the last clause of Section 11 of Act VIII of 1865.

3. The Head Assistant Collector, in the absence of any plea regarding a contract and in the absence of any evidence of a survey having been effected by the British Government before the 1st