The main legal point established is that the recitals in the deeds serve as prima facie evidence, and tenants cannot be estopped from denying the landlord's right to claim possession based on statutory protections.

Venkataramana Rao, J.

1. This second appeal arises out of a suit instituted by the plaintiffs as purchasers of the equity of redemption of two mortgages dated 22nd June, 1914 and 12th November, 1918. Tlie mortgage of 22nd June, 1914, is usufructuary and that of 12th November, 1918, is simple. The plaintiffs sued for redemption of. the mortgages and for recovery of possession of the lands mortgaged thereunder. The right to redeem is not denied. The amount due and payable under the mortgages is not disputed. But the point in controversy between the parties is whether the plaintiffs are entitled to recover vacant possession of the lands or are only entitled to the melvaram interest therein. The contention of the defendants is that on the date of the mortgage in 1914 they were cultivating tenants in possession of the lands and had occupancy rights therein and that what was mortgaged was only the melvaram interest. The plaintiffs said in answer that under the terms of the mortgage what was mortgaged was the entire land and not merely the melvaram interest and that the tenants had no occupancy rights but were only tenants at will and that even assuming they had occupancy rights they were precluded from asserting such rights. So the substantial questions which fell to be decided were (1) whether the defendants had occupancy rights on the date of the usufructuary mortgage in 1914 and (2) assuming they had occupancy rights whether they are estopped from contending that they had such rights. The learned District Munsif of Parvatipur who tried the case was of the opinion that as the lands were dharrmilla inam lands and the defendants father was a cultivating tenant on the date of the mortgage the defendants were( entitled to loccupancy rights and they were not estopped from resisting the plaintiffs right to claim possession. On appeal the learned Subordinate Judge held against the defendants on both the points and gave a decree in favour of the plaintiffs as prayed for. It is against this decision that this second appeal has been preferred by the defendants. It seems to me that on both the points the view of the learned Judge is wrong.

2. Ex. IV (a) which is the deed of mortgage dated 22nd June, 1914, Ex. IV which is dated 12th November, 1918, and two other deeds of mortgage which were filed by the plaintiffs themselves (Exs. B and C) relating to the suit land describe the nature of the land as dharmilla inam. Ex. IV (a) clearly states that the land was under the cultivation of the defendants father on that date; and as the learned Subordinate Judge observes it was conceded before him that the defendants were in possession as tenants on the date of the mortgage. The recitals are prima facie evidence as regards the nature of the tenure of the land and the learned District Munsif who came to the conclusion on those recitals that it was dharmilla inam land was perfectly warranted in doing so. What Mr. Jagannatha Das contends is that those recitals ought not to be taken as evidence against his clients because on the date of the document the executant (the plaintiffs predecessor in title) was a minor and those recitals were made by the guardian and that an opportunity should be given to his clients for placing more evidence on record in regard to the nature of the tenure. The question whether the defendants had occupancy rights was specifically put in issue in issue 4. The plaintiffs themselves1 filed Ex. C which contain recitals as to the land being dharmilla inam and Exs. IV and IV(a) under which the mortgages were created describe the land as dharmilla inam. As I have already observed the recitals in the deeds would be prima facie evidence against the plaintiffs. The fact that the recitals were made by the guardian is not a reason for not taking them as prima facie evidence unless it can be shown that those recitals were made under a mistake or misapprehension of the nature of the tenure in regard to which the burden would certainly