RENUPADA MUKHERJEE, J.

( 1 ) THIS appeal has arisen out of a suit instituted by the plaintiffs appellants for recovery of arrears of rent from the defendant respondent for the years 1352 to 1355 B. S. at the rate of Rs. 55/- per year with cesses and damages at the ordinary rates.

( 2 ) THE suit was contested by the defendant whose only defence in so far as the present appeal is concerned was that the plaintiffs can recover rent at the rate of Rs. 34/- per year and not at the, rate of Rs. 557- per year as claimed by them.

( 3 ) THIS defence of the defendant found favour with the trial court and it decreed the claim of the plaintiffs at the rate of Rs. 34/- per year with cesses and damages at the ordinary rates and also with costs in proportion to plaintiffs success.

( 4 ) AN appeal was preferred by the plaintiffs from the above judgment and decree of the trial court and the lower appellate court dismissed the appeal and affirmed the decree of the trial court although on grounds somewhat different from the grounds given in the judgment of the trial court. This appeal has been preferred by the plaintiffs from the above Judgment and decree of the lower appellate court.

( 5 ) THE decision of this appeal depends on the construction and interpretation of a solenama filed by the present parties in Title Suit No. 138, of 1943 in the court of the Munsif of Ghatal. Another question which has cropped up in that connection is whether that solenama is compulsorily registrable and whether in the absence of such registration that document can be admitted or used in evidence. I may straightway mention that there is no evidence of realisation of rent at the rate of Rs. 557- per year by the plaintiffs appellants. The courts below have passed a decree in favour of the appellants at the rate of Rs. 34/-per year on the basis of the admission made by the defendant respondent as to the rate of rent. The solenama in question was marked Ext. 1 in the trial court. It is an admitted fact that the Title Suit in which the solenama was filed was instituted by the defendant respondent for declaration of his title to the rent lands and for khas possession thereof. Besides the two appellants there were two other defendants in that suit with whom we are not concerned. The present appellants and the defendant respondent came to terms; in that title suit and filed a petition of compromise the material terms whereof were that Birendra alias Bireswar Sana the respodnent of this appeal and plaintiff of the previous title suit would pay a selami of Rs. 102/- to the present appellants within Magh, 1332 B. S. mid possess the rent lands under them at a rent of Rs. 557- per year with effect from 1352 B. S. If he defaulted in paying the selami of Rs. 102/- within the period so fixed, the suit lands would enure to the khas possession of the present appellants and the title suit of the respondent would stand dismissed.

( 6 ) THE trial court has held that the above solenama was a compulsorily registrable document inasmuch as it purported to create a lease and as it was not registered it could not be utilised by the plaintiffs landlords for the purpose of proving what was the amount of annual jama. The trial court further held that the previous jama was Rs. 34/- and as it was enhanced to Rs. 55/- the enhancement was his by section 29 of the Bengal Tenancy Act and the landlords were not entitled to realise rent at the enhanced amount provided in the solenama.

( 7 ) IN appeal the lower appellate court held that the solenama only varied the previous rent which wag Rupees 34/- and, therefore, it was not compulsorily registrable. That court, however, affirmed the finding of the trial court that Section 29 of the Bengal Tenancy Act operated as a bar to the realisation of rent by the appellants at the rate of Rs. 55/- per year.

( 8 ) MR. Pal appearing on behalf of the plaintiffs appellants submitted before me that the courts below committed an error in law in holding that Se

Click Here to Read the rest of this document