The main legal point established in the judgment is the recognition and interpretation of implied contracts for rent payment, based on historical payment history and the principles outlined in relevant case law.

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 January 1859, proceeded to determine the proper rate of rent under Clause 3 of Section 11 of the Act. He found that the crop-war rate claimed was the faisal rate and that the lands of the adjacent village belonging to the same zamindary paid crop-war rates and sadal-war at the present day. This decision, if warranted by the evidence, was in accordance with the rules prescribed in Section 11, whereas the decision of the District Judge does not appear to be in accordance with those rules.

4. We request the District Judge to remit a fresh finding on the facts from the evidence on record as to what is the proper rate of rent if determined in accordance with Section 11.

5. The finding should be returned in six weeks, and seven days are allowed for filing objections.

6. In compliance with the above order the lower Court submitted the following.

Finding

7. I am directed to remit a fresh finding on the facts from the evidence on record as to what is the proper rate of rent, if it could be determined in accordance with Section 11 of the Rent Recovery Act.

2. Plaintiffs 3rd witness produced accounts filed herein as Exhibits B and C. He did not prepare them and was not present, when they were prepared. Exhibit C relates to the year 1884-85 and to the previous years. Exhibit B relates to the years 1893 to 1895. The evidence of plaintiffs 3rd Witness is that the above accounts were prepared for the purpose of calculating road cess. Defendants 1st witness deposes to the same effect. Plaintiffs 3rd witness cannot state that crop-war rents were collected in accordance with the accounts. Exhibits A, B and C. He was working as Karnam before 1895, and his younger brother has been the Karnam of the village after 1895. He and his father before him never prepared a Baki Japata (statement of arrears) or Vadambadikai (agreement). He knew nothing about collections of rents and about the rates, at which they were collected. Plaintiffs 4th witness is an interested witness. He vaguely states that, apparently within his knowledge, he once paid crop-war rent about 20 years before the suits. He does not speak about any payment of rent made by the tenants, who are parties to the present litigation.

3. Defendants witnesses Nos. 1 to 3 depose that for about 20 years before this litigation, the tenants were paying rent at fixed Ayan rates. Defendants 3rd witness produced receipts granted to his father and filed here in as Exhibit II series. They show that the father of the witness paid to the landlord rent at Rs. 48-9-0 per annum in the years 1880-81, 1881-82, 1882-83 and. 1884-85. The witness states that he was paying rent at the same rate till the year for which the plaintiff is seeking to enforce acceptance of pattas. Exhibit II series are proved by defendants 5th witness.

4. Exhibit D is