JUDGMENT

Bomford J.M.

1. The decree-holder in this case raises the question whether rent recorded as said mutalba Should be taken into consideration in valuing property under the Regulation of Sales Act. He refers to several decisions of the Board of which the most apposite is Dharam Narain v. Durga Dei (1928) 12 R.D. 631. His point is that he suffers sufficient loss under the Act without the Court inflating the value of the property to be transferred with profits from rents which cannot be realised, once the tenants learn what is the law.

2. Neither party made reference to Dukhi Lodh v. Bijai Bahadur Singh (1930) 14 R.D. 91 wherein it was held that irregularly enhanced rent became payable when paid over a long series of years and attested in the settlement records. So I presume that there has been no attestation of the said mutalba.

3. But Respondent relies on Rule 2 of the Rules under the Act read with Para 458 of the Revenue Manual. Para 458 read:

The market value of the proprietary rights in agricultural properties should usually be calculated on the basis of the profits of the proprietor i.e., his rental income, (actual and assumed) less land revenue and local rates.

4. Para. 459 be