O Kinealy, J.

1. This is an action in ejectment, in which the plaintiffs,Shoshi Bhooshun Bose and another, sought to obtain a parcel of land from GirishChunder Mitter and others.

2. The plaintiffs succeeded in the first Court; but onappeal the learned Subordinate Judge came to an opposite conclusion, anddismissed the suit. In dealing with the case he rejected certain documents; andit is in connection with the rejection of these documents that this case comesbefore us in second appeal.

3. The first documents in the order of time which have beenrejected by the Lower Court may be said to be two kabuliats

* * * * * *

4. The next are extracts from what is called the Collectorsregister, kept under Bengal Act VII of 1876. Under that Act, the Collector isdirected to keep up a register; and the form is set forth at page 28 of thePaper Book. It contains the name of the estate, its towji number, the names ofthe proprietors or managers, and other particulars regarding the estate, with astatement of their character and extent. In that register there were entriesshowing that Abdul Rohim and others obtained by inheritance proportionateshares in chuck Boroda Belpara. These extracts were tendered in evidence, andthe Judge in the Court below was of opinion that they were not evidence eitherof possession or of title. It is, however, contended by the appellants that theyare admissible under Section 35 of the Evidence Act, but they have beenrepudiated by the respondents, upon the authority of the case of Saraswati Dasiv. Dhanpat Singh I.L.R. Cal. 431, in which it was held that such entries arenot admissible under Section 35 of the Evidence Act. No doubt in that case,before the late Chief Justice and Mr. Justice FIELD, the learned Chief Justicedid state that that was his view; but that view was not acquiesced in by Mr.Justice Field, and it is also opposed to a decision of the Privy Council (SeeLekraj Kuar v. Mahpal Singh I.L.R. Cal. 744 : L.R. 7 IndAp 63.

5. We also understand that in the Court below thequinquennial papers were considered as not admissible in evidence; but upon theview we take of the matter, it will be necessary for the Court below toconsider these also in dealing with the whole case. * * * *

* * *

6. We do not in any way express any opinion as to the valueof these several pieces of evidence.

7. The case must therefore be sent back to the LowerAppellate Court for re-trial.

8. Costs will abide the result.

.

Shoshi Bhooshun Bose and Ors. vs. Girish Chunder Mitter andOrs. (06.03.1893 - CALHC)