which they agreed to pay rent at enhanced rates, are void as having been executed under coercion and as not being in accordance with law. The defendants resisted the suit on the around that the Kabuliyats were executed voluntarily, that the allegation of coercion was false and that the plaintiffs had held the lands at a specially low rate of rent in consideration of their growing indigo for the convenience of the defendants and hence the Kabuliyats came within proviso 3 to section 29 of the Bengal Tenancy Act. The Munsif of Champaran by his judgment dated the 9th June 1916 dismissed all the nine suits, holding that the plaintiffs failed to prove that there was any coercion in the matter of the execution of the Kabuliyats in question as alleged by them, that they had held their lands at specially low rates of rent inconsideration of their obligation to grow indigo and agreed to pay the enhanced rent as mentioned in the Kabuliyats on account of their having been released from the said obligation. In short, the Munsif held that the Kabuliyats are legal and valid under proviso 3 to section 29 of the Bengal Tenancy Act.
2. On appeal the District Judge of Muzafferpore agreed with the Munsif that the Kabuliyats in none of the suits were executed on account of any coercion. The Judge also agreed with the Munsif that in four of the suits, bearing Nos. 71 and 72 of 1015 and 1447 and 1448 of 1914 corresponding to appeals in the lower Court Nos. 214, 215, 217 and 218, the Kabuliyats were valid under proviso 3 to section 29 as having been executed in consideration of the release that the plaintiffs obtained from their obligation to grow indigo on the land which they had held at specially low rates of rent on account of the said obligation.
3. The plaintiffs have come to this Court in second appeal with respect to these suits and these appeals are numbered here 827, 828, 829 and 830.
4. In the remaining Eve suits Nos. 1445 of 1914, 68 of 1915, 69 of 915, 70 of 1915 and 1446 of 1914 of the Munsif's Court, corresponding to Appeals Nos. 210, 211, 212, 213 and 216 of the lower Appellate Court, the learned Judge disagreed with the Munsif that the defendants had held their lands at specially low rates of rent in consideration of their obligation to grow a particular crop, namely, indigo and that the Kabuliyats were executed in consideration of their having obtained a release from any such obligation, and decreed the suits of the plaintiffs. The defendants in these suits have, therefore, preferred second appeals to this Court which are numbered 663 to 667.
5. Mr. Kennedy on behalf of the defendants has raised a preliminary question, namely, that the plaintiffs' suits are barred by the provisions of the Champaran Agrarian Act (1 of 1918) and that the plaintiffs are not entitled to any declaration, inasmuch as the rent payable by them for the holding has been determined under the Act and noted in the finally published Record of Rights. In support of this contention Mr. Kennedy has referred to the Act, the rules framed by the Local Government under section 4, sub-clause 3 of the Act, and has filed in this Court a certified copy of the order sheet of the Assistant Settlement Officer from 2nd August to 11th November 1918, a copy of the Khatians of the finally published Record of Rights in respect of the plaintiffs' tenancies, a copy of the notice issued by the Assistant Settlement Officer under rules 2 to 4 and a copy of the Schedule No. I in Form B prepared under rule 9 with the service return of the peon, and an affidavit on behalf of the Patwari alleging that the notices were duly served in village Madhubani.
6. The appeals in the Court below were disposed of on the 15th March 1917. All the aforesaid nine appeals to this Court were filed in June and July 1917. While these second appeals were pending in this Court, the Champaran Agrarian Act (I of 1918) came into force on the 1st May 1918. Section 3, clause (1), enacts that on and after the commencement of the Act any agreement, lease or other contract between a landlord and a tenant which contains a condition to set apart the land of his tenancy or any portion thereof for the cultivation of a particular crop, shall be void to the extent of such condition. Section 4(1)(a) provides that where, in consideration of the release of a tenant from a condition, special condition or incident of the nature described in section 3, the rent payable by such tenant has, prior to the 1st day of October 1917, been enhanced, the amount of such enhancement shall, with effect from the said date, be reduced by 20 per centum in the case of rent payable to Turkaulia, Limited, and by 26 per centum in all other cases. Subsection 2 of section 4 says that a note of the rent of a tenancy resulting from reduction tinder clause (a) shall be made in the Record of Rights and such note shall, with effect from the 1st day of October 1917, he deemed part of the Record of Rights and be conclusive evidence of the amount of such rent. Sub-section (3) empowers the Local Government to prescribe by rules the authority by whom the proper amount of reduction and the resulting rent of the tenancy shall be determined in each case; the authority by whom the note referred to in sub-section (2) shall be made; and the procedure to be followed by such authority. Sub-sections 4 and 5 declare the effect of the decision of the authority and that of the entry in the Record of Rights on a suit or proceeding in any Court. These sub-sections will be referred to again later on.
7. On the 19th June, the Local Government by notification in the Bihar and Orissa Gazette declared the Settlement Officer to be the authority for deciding matters referred to in sub-section 3 of section 4 and also made rules prescribing the procedure to be followed by that authority. Under rule 10, the Settlement Officer delegated his powers to the Assistant Settlement Officer.
8. In order to decide matters referred to in sub section 3, the Assistant Settlement Officer, to whom the powers were delegated, on 2nd August 1918 passed an order directing that notice be issued as required by rules 2 to 4 upon the landlords and tenants of village Madhubani, Thana No. 166, Gobindganj, to appear with whatever evidence they have, on 22nd to 24th August 1918, in Camp Bettiah at 11 A.M. The notices were served on 13th August 1918 and the case was taken up on 22nd August. On 24th August the Assistant Settlement Officer recorded an order in which he held that in most cases the enhancement took place prior to October 1917 in consideration of the release of the tenants from their obligation to grow indigo and that these enhancements were not recorded in the Record of Rights and as the rents were enhanced prior to 1st October 1917, the Assistant Settlement Officer directed these enhancements to be restored subject to the prescribed reduction of 20 per centum. It is, however, not clear from this order whether it refers to the tenancies of the plaintiffs in the present cases. On the 11th November 1918, after the expiry of the time for filing objections, a note of the rent thus found by the Assistant Settlement Officer was made in the Record of Rights under sub-section (2) of section 4 of the Act. The Schedule No. I in form 'B,' prescribed by rule 9 of the Government Rules, was prepared by the Assistant Settlement Officer giving particulars of the tenants whose rents were reduced under section 4, clause (1)(a). In this schedule the particulars of the rents under clause (1)(a) of all the nine plaintiffs in the present appeals have been noted.
9. It is contended by Mr. Kennedy on behalf of the defendants that under sub-section (4)(c) the decision of the Assistant Settlement Officer, being the authority appointed by Government under sub-section 3 as to the amount of the rent to be noted in the Record of Rights, is final and that the correctness of that decision cannot be contested in any suit or proceeding in any Court. It is further contended that under sub-section 5, in any suit for recovery of arrears of rent scorning prior to the 1st day of October 1917, the said entry in the Record of Rights shall be conclusive evidence of the amount of rent payable in respect of the plaintiffs' tenancies from the dates from which the enhancements took effect as embodied in the Kabuliyats up to the end of the Fasli year 1824 and hence the plaintiffs are not entitled to any declaration in respect of the Kabuliyats executed by them inasmuch as the declarations, even if granted, would be nugatory in view of the entry being conclusive evidence in any suit for rent prior or subsequent to 1st October 1917.
10. On behalf of the respondents it is contended that the defendants are not entitled to raise the plea inasmuch as the documents upon which the plea is rested, were not filed in the Courts below and that they could not be admitted at this stage in second appeal. These documents certainly could not be filed in the lower Courts, inasmuch as they did not exist at the time when the suits or appeals in the Courts below were pending. They have come into existence since the filing of the appeals in this Court. There is nothing in law to prevent these documents, that have come into existence since the appeals were filed, from being admitted into evidence. Not only that it is permissible for the Court to admit them but it appears to me that it is imperative upon this Court to take these documents into evidence in order to see if they affect the disposal of the present appeals. The Champaran Agrarian Act came into existence on the 1st of May 1918 and was enacted with a view to settle and determine disputes subsisting in the district of Champaran between landlord and tenant, and it is necessary to see if the Act affects the present cases that are pending for final disposal in second appeals in this Court, and in order to determine that it is necessary to admit the documents filed by the defendants. A Court cannot shut its eyes to the events that come into existence during the pendency of any suit or proceeding; and Nuri Miah v. Ambica Singh 34 Ind. Cas. 869 : 24 C.L.J. 140 : 20 C.W.N. 1099 : 44 C. 47. I would, therefore, overrule this contention of the learned Vakil on behalf of the plaintiffs.
11. It is then said that the admission of the documents at this stage will necessitate a remand of the case to the Court below in order to determine the point at issue. This might have been the case if the documents in question could not be admitted without proof or investigation, but none of them appear to require any proof. The Khatians and the finally published Record of Rights, the Schedule No. I prepared under rule 9 and the order sheet of the Assistant Settlement Officer are public documents and are admissible without any proof. As to the copy of the notice under rules 2 to 4 with the service return of the peon, the plaintiffs have filed affidavit of the Patwari swearing that the said notice was served on the spot. The defendants do not deny in their counter-affidavit the service of the notice but simply allege that the notice ought to have been served in the village Personna. But from the plaints in the oases and from the Khatians it is clear that Personna is only a tola or hamlet appertaining to village Madhubani and that under the Bengal Tenancy Act, section 3, clause (10), there is no such village as Personna. The result is that the documents filed by the plaintiffs must be admitted.
12. The plaintiffs next contend that there is no decision of the Assistant Settlement Officer showing that the rents payable by the plaintiffs were enhanced in consideration of their release from the obligation to grow indigo as a special condition or incident of their tenancies or as to the amount of rent to be noted in the Record of Rights as required by sub-clause (4)(a) and (c) of section 4, This contention is raised under rules 6 and 7 of the Government Rules. Under the former, the Assistant Settlement Officer is to ascertain summarily among other matters whether the rent was enhanced in consideration of the release of a tenant from a condition or special condition or incident of the nature described in section 3 and the amount of such enhancement. Rule 7 says that if there is a dispute as to any of those points, the Settlement Officer shall give his reason for his decisions. It appears, however, that the plaintiffs did not appear before the Assistant Settlement Officer although it has been shown on behalf of the defendants that the notice was properly served. This notice clearly stated that in default of the appearance of the parties on the date fixed, or on the adjourned date, the proceedings will be conducted in their absence. Under rule 5, the Assistant Settlement Officer had to decide the cases ex parte. The Assistant Settlement Officer clearly says in his order of the 13th August that the notices were properly served and the proceedings were conducted ex parte against the absentee tenants. As the question before him was ex parte, he had simply to determine the particulars required by rule 6. This he has done and has recorded his determination in Schedule B. In this schedule he has recorded the rent that existed before the enhancement, the amount of the enhancement, the reduced enhancement under section 4(1)(a) and the new rent. As the plaintiffs did not contest before him that the enhancement was not in consideration of their release from the obligation to grow indigo, the Assistant Settlement Officer was not required to give reasons for his decision or determination. His decision is, therefore, embodied in the schedule. By his order of the 25th October, the Assistant Settlement Officer has recorded a decision that the amount of new rent mentioned in the schedule he noted in the Record of Rights under sub-section 2 of section 4 of the Act, and a note was accordingly made on the 11th November 1818. This is the clear decision as to the amount of the rent under clause 4(c) of section 4 and has become final, the correctness of which cannot be contested in any suit or proceeding in any Court.
13. Under sub-clause (5) of section 4 the finally published entries in the Record of Rights will be conclusive evidence of the amount of rent payable by the plaintiffs from the date from which the enhancement took effect, that is, the date of the Kabuliyats, namely, November 1913, up to the end of the Fasli year 1324 (30th September 1917) in any suit or proceeding for the recovery of arrears of rent. As to the rents from 1st October 1917, the entries are conclusive evidence of the amount of the rent payable by the plaintiffs under subsection 2 of section 4. Therefore for all period whether prior or subsequent to the 1st October 1917 the rents payable by the plaintiffs will be those as entered in the Record of Rights. The declaration that the plaintiffs now seek, even if granted by this Court, will not override the aforesaid finally published entries in the Record of Rights in any suit or proceeding that may be instituted by the landlord for the recovery of rents. The decision of the authority prescribed under clause (a), sub-section 3 of section 4, has been declared to be final under the Act with respect to the matters mentioned therein. As to any question other than those referred to in section 4, no finality is declared under the Act. But under the Kabuliyats sought to be set aside in these suits, no other question except as to the rents payable there under can arise, and we are not aware of any litigation having arisen between the parties under the Kabuliyats except the present suits. It has not been suggested at the Bar that any other dispute between the parties under the Kabuliyats can arise. The matters in dispute between the parties in these suits and those that could possibly arise under the Kabuliyats appear to be covered by the decision of the authority under clause (4) of section 4 which is final, and hence any declaration setting aside the Kabuliyats would be nugatory. It is a settled principle of law that no declaration should be made which will be infructuous. The Court will not, therefore, use its discretion to grant the declaration sought for by the plaintiffs.
14. The plaintiffs' suit for declaration must, therefore, fail irrespective of whether the decision of the District Judge is right or wrong in any of the nine suits.
15. It is needless to enter into the merits of the case and to decide whether the District Judge was right or wrong in respect of his decision of the nine suits before him. The tenants' appeals Nos. 827, 828, 829 and 830 must accordingly be dismissed. The landlords' appeals Nos. 663 to 667 are decreed. In the circumstances there should be no costs allowed to either party in any of the nine appeals.
B.K. Mullick, J.
16. I agree.
