Patkar, J - (1.)After stating the facts:] It is urged on behalf of the appellant that the introduction of the survey in the village | would not affect the right of the plaintiff as a sutidar, that the defendants had not the right of increasing the money valuation of the grain rental, that the defendants have failed to prove that there was any relation of landlord and tenant as alleged by him, and that the levy of increased assessment was not justifiable in the absence of any contract and was not authorized under the provisions of the Bombay Land Revenue Code.
(2.)It is argued on behalf of the respondents that the finding of the learned Joint Judge that the lands in suit were suti is erroneous on the evidence in the case, and even if the plaintiff was a sutidar of the lands in suit, the tenure would subsist so long as the lands remained rice lands, and the tenure created essentially for the purpose of cultivation would come to an end on putting the lands to a non-agricultural use under Section 48 of the Bombay Land Revenue Code, and that in any event, the plaintiff cannot complain of the excess levied from him, as it is not shown by the plaintiff that the present assessment is in excess of the money valuation of the grain rental fixed on the lands.
(3.)The first question, therefore, arising in the case is whether the plaintiff has proved that the lands were held on a suti tenure under Regulation I of 1808. It is urged that the lands came into the possession of the plaintiff's predecessor-in-title in the year 1867, and no evidence is led to prove that the lands were in the possession of the plaintiff's predecessor-in- title in the year 1808 when the Regulation I of 1808 came into force, and reference is made to Campbell's "Bombay Gazetteer," Thana, Vol. XIII, Part II, page 532, where it is stated that people still speak of rice land held under the survey tenure as suti and sutidar is used with the same meaning as khatedar or survey occupant. It is further urged that in Exs. 72 and 80 the lands are not described as suti, but . . . i.e., like suti, and no reference is made to the sutidar in the defendants kowl, Ex. 50. The defendants admit that they as khots have no record relating to the village prior to 1898, and it would be difficult for the plaintiff to prove that his predecessors-in-title held the lands on the suti tenure since before 1808 in the absence of any record in the possession of the defendants. The plaintiff has proved his occupancy up to the year 1867. The defendants specifically alleged that the lands were let to the plaintiff's predecessor-in-title after the grant of 1831, but there is no reliable evidence in support of the defendants allegation. There is no satisfactory evidence, therefore, of the commencement of the interest of the predecessors of the plaintiff in these lands. The khot admitted that the plaintiff was the owner of the lauds subject to payment of assessment, and that he had no power to evict him so long as the assessment was paid. Exhibit 72, the assessment receipt book, contains entries which clearly show that a portion of the lands in suit was assessed as kharip paddy land. Rupees 6-2-7 is the assessment on bagayat land and Rs. 6-6-5 is on account of kharip paddy land according to suti which was assessed according to the grain rental of eight faras out of the dhep jara of twelve faras, and the grain rental was commuted into money at Rs. 20 per mudha. The assessment of Rs. 13-5-6 has been invariably paid by the plaintiff and his predecessors-in-title up to the year 1919. We, therefore, accept the finding of fact arrived at by the learned Joint Judge that plaintiff has proved that he is a sutidar in respect of the lands which are held by him on a tenure referred to in Regulation I of 3.808.