JUDGMENT Sanderson, C.J. - This is an appeal from the judgment of the learned Additional District Judge of 24-Perganhas, whereby he affirmed the judgment of the Court below; and the only question which arises on this appeal is with reference to the amount of rent which is payable under the Contract in writing, a translation of which has been handed up to us. I think it is desirable in this case to draw attention to the terms of the Plaintiffs claim, and we are indebted to my learned brother Mr.- Justice Mookerjee who is sitting with us at our request, for having our attention drawn to the claim. The claim is one for Re. 1-6-8 gds. in cash; the value of the paddy is Rs. 28-12 as., making a total of something over Rs. 30. then in addition to that, the Plaintiffs have claimed 25 percent, on the Rs. 30 odd, making an amount of Rs. 7 odd, and altogether Rs. 38-9 as. The 25 per cent, is obviously a claim in pursuance of sec. 68 of the Bengal Tenancy Act. Therefore, it is obvious that that is a claim for rent and nothing else otherwise the Plaintiffs could not have claimed 25 per cent, on the amount which they bad claimed. 2. In order to justify this claim, the Plaintiffs must satisfy us that there was a covenant in the contract to pay such a claim. 3. The document was a mokurari and maurasi kabuliyat The kabuliyat was m respect of 4 bighas and "at the rent at Rs. 1-6-0 each and 7 arts of paddy the market value whereof is Rs. 15." Then comes a phrase as to the translation of which there was a little dispute, although I think the translation given by the learned Vakil for the Appellants and that given by the learned Vakil for the Respondents did not differ very much. On behalf of the Appellants it was said that the Bengali words of that phrases ought to be translated as follows : "Taking the cash and the price of pady together, the total rent being fixed at Rs 16-6-9 gda." The learned Vakil for the Respondents translated them as follows : "Taking the Cash and the price of paddy together assessing the total rent at Rs. 16-6-8gds." As I have said before, I do not think there is any material difference between the two translations. Then the document goes on as follows : "And on payment of Rs. 30 as Selami, and covenant that I will maintain the boundaries and shall pay the cash rent fixed every year in Bhadra and Pous and the paddy in the month of Magh every year in one kist. Then there are several other provisions to which I need not refer. Then there is the following clause : "There shall be no increase or abatement in the jumma." At the end are these words "To this effect I hereby execute this mokurari maurasi kabuliyat. 4. On behalf of the Respondents it was contended that the material sentence to which I have referred was inserted merely for the purpose of determining the registration fee. On the other hand, on behalf of the Appellants if was contended that the parties had agreed to fix the total rent which was payable under this contract and had fixed this amount at Rs. 16-6-8 gds. The question we have to decide is which of these constructions is the correct one. 5. In my judgment the Appellants' contention is the correct one. 6. The first thing to be noticed is that this is a maurasi mokurari kdbuliyat; and, therefore, one would expect to find a_ fixed rent. In the next place, the parties should be held to that which they have said in the contract and 1 do not sec why the Court should speculate and as. a result, of that Speculation arrive of the conclusion that the important provision to which I have referred had been inserted merely for the purpose of determining the registration fee. I think there might be good reason for the parties having fixed the rent, the parties may have thought that it would he more prudent, as between themselves, to fix the amount which should be taken as the value of the paddy rather than have a dispute upon each occasion as to the market value of it. to case it were not delivered. That is a point to which the late Chief Justice Sir Francis Maclean drew attention in giving his judgment in an unreported case decided by Sir Francis Maclean and Mr. Justice Banerjee (Dwarka Nath Mukerjee v. Dwijendra Nath Ghosal) * Second Appeal No. 966 of 1895. to case it were not delivered. That is a point to which the late Chief Justice Sir Francis Maclean drew attention in giving his judgment in an unreported case decided by Sir Francis Maclean and Mr. Justice Banerjee (Dwarka Nath Mukerjee v. Dwijendra Nath Ghosal) * Second Appeal No. 966 of 1895. (Unreported), to which our attention was drawn. The Bengali words which were used in the present contract are, no doubt, not the same as the Bengali words in the contract with which Sir Francis Maclean and Mr. Justice Banerjee had to deal; lad n was contended by the learned Vakil for the Appellants and I think it is not denied by the learned Vakil for the Respondents that there was practically no difference in the meaning of the two phrases, and I was much struck with the judgment of Mr. Justice Banerjee. when referring to the Bengali phrase used in the contract in that, Case; he said, "The words in the original.....are a well-known Bengali expression which means a great deal more than a provisional settlement of the rent for the incidental purpose of ascertaining the stamp duty. The lease was a mokurari maurasi lease; and when such a document mentions a certain sum of money as the jumma abadharita, which word's may well be rendered as the fixed rent, the meaning of the document seems to be very clear, that the parties wanted to fix the value of the paddy, that is the part of the rent which was payable in kind. Being impressed with that learned Judge's judgment as to the meaning of the words I thought it was desirable that we should have the assistance of one of the learned Judges of this Court who are thoroughly acquainted with the Bengali language, and that is the reason why I asked my learned brother Mr. Justice Mookerjee to sit with us : and we shall have the advantage of his judgment presently. The best construction that I can put upon this contract is the one that is contended for by the Appellants. Looking at the document as a whole I think the parties did intend to fix the total rent which should be paid in the event of non-delivery of paddy, namely Rs. 16-6-8 gds. 7. There are several cases dealing. with points somewhat similar to the point which we have had before us to-day. Looking at the document as a whole I think the parties did intend to fix the total rent which should be paid in the event of non-delivery of paddy, namely Rs. 16-6-8 gds. 7. There are several cases dealing. with points somewhat similar to the point which we have had before us to-day. but there is no case which is exactly the same. The words in each of the cases differ to some extent from the words of the contrad in this case, consequently I do not think M is any question which should be referred to a Full Bench, as we wore asked to do by the learned Vakil for the Respondents. In my judgment, it is our duty to put on the con-tract the best construction we can. 8. For these reasons I think that the appeal should be allowed with costs. Mookerjee, J. 9. I agree that this appeal must be allowed. In my opinion, in the events which have happened, the landlords are entitled to recover rent from the tenants only at the rate of Rs. 16-6-8 gds. under the terms of the contract between them. 10. The lease is described as a maurasi mohurari kabuliyat : and the rent payable thereunder is fixed in perpetuity. This is manifest from the concluding words in other words, at no time would there be reduction or increase in the land and the rent fixed. 11. The document states that the rent is payable partly in cash and partly in kind. The cash rent is payable at the rate of Rs. 1-6-8 gds., and the paddy rent is payable at the rate of Rs. 7-3-16 gds. an ari. The document further states that the market value of the paddy is Rs. 15 and that the total rent is Rs. 16-6-8 gds. obtained by the addition of the rent in cash and the money value of the rent in kind). It is fairly clear that upon the lease taken as a whole the rent was fixed at Rs. 16-6-8 gds., if the tenant should fail to deliver the paddy under the terms of the contract. 12. 16-6-8 gds. obtained by the addition of the rent in cash and the money value of the rent in kind). It is fairly clear that upon the lease taken as a whole the rent was fixed at Rs. 16-6-8 gds., if the tenant should fail to deliver the paddy under the terms of the contract. 12. It has been suggested by the learned Vakil for the Respondents that this was not the true intention of the parties; but we must remember that we have to give effect only to such intention as the parties were able to express by the language used in the document; the Court is not concerned with any unexpressed intention which they might have entertained. The suggestion that the quantity of paddy deliverable might have been valued for the purpose of payment of the registration fee is a speculation for which there is no foundation either in the document or in the evidence. 13. There are many cases to be found in the books on the construction of documents of this character, more or less varying in their terms. The earliest case I have been able to trace in which the suggestion was made that the money value of the paddy was stated for purposes of the registration laws is that of Sohobut Ali v. Abdool Ali 3 C.W. N. 151 (1898).. The theory that the paddy is valued either for the purpose of convenience of the parties or for the purpose of registration reappears in two later cases,- Akbar Ali v. Durga Kripa Sen 12 C.L.J. 589 (1900). and Sheikh Isaf v. Gopal Chunder 12 C.L.J. 593(1910).; The latest case where it is reiterated is Baneswar v. Umesh I. L. R. 37 Cal. 626 (1910). On the other hand, there are decisions where the Court has construed the agreement strictly, without travelling beyond the terms expressed there and amongst cases of this class reference may be made to Bipro Charan v. Suchand Roy 12 C. L. J. 595 (1910)., After Morole v. Prosonna Kumar 15 C. W. N. 249 : s. c. 12 C.L.J. 649 (1910) and Nil-madhab v. Sitanath 26 C.L.J. 94 (1914). It now transpires that the earliest case on the point is in the same direction, namely, the unreported decision of the late Chief Justice Sir Francis Maclean and Mr. It now transpires that the earliest case on the point is in the same direction, namely, the unreported decision of the late Chief Justice Sir Francis Maclean and Mr. Justice Banerjee in Dwarka Nath Mukerjee v. Dwijendra Nath Ghosal and it is probable that if that ruling had been reported, the current of decision of this Court might have been uniform. I have read the judgment of Mr. Justice Banerjee in the case just mentioned and I entirely agree with that learned Judge as to the meaning of the expression "abadharita jununa." The expression used in this ease is not "abadharita" but "dharjya"; the two words, however, are derived from the same root, and, in my opinion, they have clearly the same significance. 14. It we were to accede to the contention of the Respondents, the result would be to destroy the character of this lease as a maurasi mokurari kabuliyat; the amount of rent payable would vary from year to year according to the market price of the paddy. This, in my opinion, was not the intention of the parties, so far as that intention can be gathered from the words wised in the document. Newbould, J. 15. With respect, I find myself unable to agree with the learned Chief Justice and my learned brother Mr. Justice Mookerjee. 16. The facts of this case seem to me to be indistinguishable from the facts of the case of Baneswar Mukerjee v. Umesh Chandra Chakraburtty (4) ILR 37 Cal. 626 (1910). There was as here a mokurari kabuliyat, the annual rent was a cash rent and a paddy rent. In the kabuliyat the paddy was valued and the total of the cash rent and valuation of the paddy rent was stated as settled in perpetuity, and it was held that the statement as to the market value of the paddy was explicable by the desirability of stating that amount for the purpose of fixing the stamp duty. It seems to me that to give any other meaning to this portion of the kabuliyat, we have now hail to consider, would contradict the terms of the document. The market value of the paddy rent and the total rental of Rs. 16-6-8 gds. It seems to me that to give any other meaning to this portion of the kabuliyat, we have now hail to consider, would contradict the terms of the document. The market value of the paddy rent and the total rental of Rs. 16-6-8 gds. are stated at the commencement of the document and subsequently comes the covenant to pay the cash rent on two different occasions and the paddy at a later date each year. There is nothing in the covenant suggesting that there is any option given to the tenant to substitute cash rent for the portion of the rent which is payable in paddy. The recovery of the paddy rent at its cash value as it varies from year to year does not seem to me to be inconsistent with the tenure being a mokurari one. When the value of the paddy varies the value of the cash may also he said to Vary in comparison with the paddy. The effect of variation is diminished by fixing, a b this case, the rent partly in cash and partly in kind. In the absence of any agreement in the kabuliyat to pay the total rent in cash, I cannot see that the statement fixing the total rent at Rs. 10-6-8 gds. can be, given any other meaning than a statement added to the document for the purpose of fixing the stamp duty and the registration fee. I would, therefore, dismiss the appeal. Sanderson, C.J. The result is that we allow the appeal, set aside the decree of the Courts below, and direct that a decree be drawn according to the judgment of the majority of the Court.