INDRAJIT PARTAP Vs. SHEWAK RAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a plaintiffs appeal arising out of a suit for arrears of rent and raises a point of law which is not covered by any decision of this Court.

(2.) It appears that the defendant pays rent in kind and it is usual to divide the produce of the field on the spot in the presence of both the parties. The plaintiff's case was that there was an arrear of three years rent and he was entitled to the same. The plaintiff estimated the money value of the crop payable to him by way of rent. The defence was that the produce had been very much exaggerated and that, as a matter of fact, the defendant was not in arrear, having paid up to the karinda of the plaintiff.

(3.) Several issues were framed by the Court of first instance, but the learned Assistant Collector decided the suit on the sole ground that no suit for arrears of rent could be maintained, where rent was payble in the way alleged by the plaintiff. There was an appeal by the plaintiff to the learned District Judge who agreed with the view of law taken by the learned Assistant Collector. The learned Judge however professed to enter into the merits of the case and found that the plaintiff had not given sufficient evidence to show that his estimate of the produce was acceptable. He was of opinion that, in the absence of the crop itself, it was impossible to appraise the value of it. As regards the question whether the defendant had paid up, the learned Judge came to no finding. He assumed for the purpose of his judgment that he had failed to pay up.