JUDGMENT
Daniels, J.
1. This revision is pressed on the ground that the Court below has entirely misread the findings submitted to it on a remand under Order XLI, Rule 25. An examination of the record shows this to be correct. The issues remitted were:
(1) Are the plots in suit situated in Mahal Basti Begam?
(2) Did the defendant ever pay rent to the zemindar of Azizganj; and if so on. what ground?
2. The learned District Judge says, “The finding on the first issue is in the affirmative, and on the second is in the negative.” In fact the finding on the first issue was in the negative. The learned Munsif found that the land in suit must be held to be in Azizganj. He also found that the zamindar of Azizganj had been collecting rent. Through what extraordinary mistake the error crept into the learned Judge’s judgment it is difficult now to know. The learned Judge in treating the findings as being the opposite of what they really were acted with material irregularity in the exercise of his jurisdiction. The best course will be to set aside his decree and direct him to re-hear the appeal, and this order I accordingly pass. Costs will abide the result.
