JUDGMENT Brett, J. - In support of this appeal it had been urged that the District Judge has erred in law in finding that the sale of the lands by Defendant No. 2 to the Plaintiff was a benami transaction, and, secondly, that the evidence on which he relies is not sufficient to support the conclusion that the lands were held utbandi by Defendant No. 1, and it is argued that whether the lands were, held utbundi or not, the Defendant, in order to save themselves from liability for the rent claimed, were bound to have proved that they had abandoned the holding. As regards the first point we think that the District Judge was in error and that the view which the Munsif has taken is correct and that as the vendor was a party to the suit and admitted the bond fides of the sale, it was not open to the Court to find that the sale was benami. 2. As to the second point we think that the finding of the District Judge is supported by evidence and that it con eludes the present appeal. The defence set up throughout by Defendant No. 1 was that he was an utbandi tenant in the years 1306 to 1307 only and that after that period he ceased to hold or to cultivate the lands. In the case of Beni Madhub Chuckerburty v. Bhubun Mohun Biswas I. L. R. 17 Cal. 393 (1890) the learned Judges who heard the appeal have laid down what they found to be the utbandi system as ascertained from the Government records and we see no reason to differ from the view which they then adopted. They quote with approval the following passage from a statistical report prepared under the orders of Government as describing the system: "utbandi is applied to land held for a year or rather for a season only. The general custom is for the husbandman to get verbal permission to cultivate a certain amount of land in a particular place at a rate agreed upon when the crop is on the ground. The land is measured and the rent is assessed on it. "The system thus described was that prevalent in the district of Nuddia and we may notice that in the present suit the land for which the rent is claimed is in that district. 3. The land is measured and the rent is assessed on it. "The system thus described was that prevalent in the district of Nuddia and we may notice that in the present suit the land for which the rent is claimed is in that district. 3. In the present case the Defendant No. 1 has given his own evidence to the effect that he held the land as an utbandi tenant, and that during the years in suit he did not cultivate or possess any portion of the land with respect to which rent is claimed. The witness for the Plaintiff on whose evidence the Judge relies says in cross-examination that "it was settled that rent would be paid according be the quantity of lands held." The Judge has accepted this statement as supporting the assertion of Defendant No. 1 that he was an utbandi tenant and we are unable to say that the inference was one which he was not entitled to draw from the evidence. That finding cannot, therefore, be assailed in second appeal. 4. The Defendants having then proved that they were throughout utbandi tenants and under that system the "settlement being for a year only and the cultivators not being obliged to hold or to cultivate the lands for a second year though they may do so, it was not incumbent on the Defendants to prove that they had given notice to the landlords that they had abandoned the lands in order to avoid the liability for paying rents for years after they had ceased to hold the lands. They explained that they did not mention to the landlord that they would not continue to hold or cultivate the land because his right and title had been sold at an auction sale. As, however, under the law they were not bound to give any notice of abandonment, they cannot be held to have been liable for rents for subsequent years after they had ceased to hold and cultivate the lands. We, therefore, affirm the judgment and decree of the lower Appellate Court and dismiss the appeal with costs.