Without that receipt any objection regarding the payment of rent shall be invalid.
Ka 6 in the case.
The original owner sold the suit property to one Babu Ram who in turn sold the same to the plaintiffs.
The document further says Firstly that I shall companytinue to pay the rent annually in the office of the proprietors, aforesaid, at mauza Mussorie or to their karinda.
4/ per annum.
Admittedly Isa Bela and her children agreed to the terms embodied in the document.
In Second Appeal, the High Court reversed the decree and judgment of the Courts below and dismissed the suit on two grounds.
4/ per annum to the owners of the suit property.
Under that document Masita was to pay rent to Isa Bela and her children at the rate of Rs.
I shall have numberobjection.
It is number said that they had companytravened any of the terms in the agreement.
I shall take a receipt for the same from the Manager, duly signed by him.
That document was signed only by Masita.
He used for the possession of the suit properties after issuing a numberice purporting to terminate the tenancy of the defendants respondents in this appeal .
The house put up by Masita was reconstructed by the defendants.
The plaintiffs have brought this suit on the basis of the agreement entered into in 1911.
It is marked as Exh.
The case of the plaintiff is that the defendants are monthly tenants.
The defendants have been regularly paying Rs.
S. Hegde, J. This is an appeal by special leave.
The plaintiff is the appellant.
