1. The presumption that a Zemindary tenant has permanent occupancy right is in this case rebutted by the several muchilikas executed by the 1st defendant and his father from time to time for a period extending over ten years. In these muchilikas the tenant states he is bound to surrender the laud at the end of the year at the landlord’s pleasure. The genuineness of these documents is, however, disputed. We must direct the Judge to find if they are genuine or not, and if they are genuine, whether there is any ground for holding that the tenant is not bound by the admission. The finding should be submitted on the evidence on record within one month from the date of the receipt of this order. Seven days will be allowed for filing objections after the finding has been posted up in this Court. If the muchilikas are found to be binding the question of notice will not arise as the agreement is to dispense with notices.
2. The District Judge submitted the following
Finding : – My finding is, that the mudhilikas are genuine, and that the 1st Defendant is bound by the admission contained therein.
3. Accepting the finding we reverse the decree of the District Judge and restore that of the District Munsif with costs in this and in the lower appellate Court.