JUDGMENT Mookeejee, J. - These twenty-one appeals arise out of as many applications, made by landlords under sees. 105 and 105A of the Bengal Tenancy Act, for settlement of fair and equitable rent in respect of the lauds held by their tenants. In the record-of-rights as finally published, entries had been made to the effect that each tenure was held at a fixed rate of rent. The tenants accordingly contended that the rents were not liable to enhancement. The Assistant Settlement Officer gave effect to this contention, subject to the reservation that excess lands Were liable to be assessed with additional rent. Upon appeal the Special Judge has reversed this decision, and has assessed fair and equitable rent, inasmuch as the tenures were, in his opinion, not held at rates of rent fixed in perpetuity. In this Court, the decision of the Special Judge has been assailed on a four-fold ground, namely, first, that upon a true construction of the grant in each case, it should have been held that the tenure was held at a rate of rent fixed in perpetuity secondly, that the tenants were entitled to the benefit of the presumption formulated in sec. 50 of the Bengal Tenancy Act; thirdly, that the tenures were protected from enhancement, as they had been continuously in existence and had been held at a uniform rate of rent from a date anterior to the Permanent Settlement of 1793; and, fourthly, that if the rent was liable to enhancement, the provisions of sec. 7 of the Bengal Tenancy Act must be strictly followed. It is plain that if the first of these grounds be substantiated, the others do not require examination. There is no controversy that the lands of the disputed tenures were originally comprised in a revenue-paying estate which was permanently settled in 1793. The proprietors defaulted, with the result, that the estate was sold for arrears of revenue on the 29th March 1834, when the Government became the purchaser. The lands were kept under the direct management of the revenue authorities from 1834 to 1861, when a permanently settled estate was created in favour of the predecessors of the present Plaintiffs. In 1836, while the lands were under the direct management of the revenue authorities, settlements were made with tenure-holders who had been in occupation, in many in stances, from before the date of the Permanent Settlement.of 1703. In 1836, while the lands were under the direct management of the revenue authorities, settlements were made with tenure-holders who had been in occupation, in many in stances, from before the date of the Permanent Settlement.of 1703. The question thus arises, whether the rents so settled in 1836 are liable to enhancement or must be deemed to have been fixed in perpetuity by the grants then made. In the construction of these grants, we are not concerned with the points, whether the tenures were in fact in existence in 1793, whether they had been held at a uniform rate of rent since then, or whether by application of sec. 50 of the Bengal Tenancy Act they may be presumed to have been so in existence and held at a uniform rate of rent during the period mentioned; nor are we called upon to consider, in connection with the question of construction, whether the tenures continued in fact and in law, notwithstanding the sale for arrears of revenue. The construction of the grants must depend upon the interpretation of all the terms of each instrument, and, except in a case of ambiguity, extrinsic evidence would not be admissible; see N. E. Railway v. Hastings [1900] A. C. 260. Hebbert v. Purchas L. R. 3 P. C. 605 (1871). and Secretary of Slate v. Narendranath Mittrr 32 C. L. J. 402 (1920). As pointed out by the Judicial Committee in Upadrashta v. Dim L. R. 46 I. A. 123: s. c. 24.C W. N. 129 (1919) and Chidambara v. Veerama P. C. 15th May,1922 Reported 27 C. W. N. 245. each case must be considered on its own facts; in order to ascertain the effect of the grant resort must be had to the terms of the grant itself and to the whole circumstances so far as they can now be ascertained. Nor does the question of burden of proof arise; for as observed in Setu Ratnam v. Venkata Chala L. R. 47 I. A. 76: s. c. 25 C. W. N. 485 (1919), when the entire evidence on both sides is once before the Court, the debate as to onus is purely academical; the controversy has passed the stage at which discussion as to the burden of proof is pertinent; the relevant facts are before the Court and all that remains for decision is, what inference should be drawn from them. 2. The grant in each case was made by a document divisible into two parts; the first shows the details of assessment, the second sets out the terms of the settlement. In some instances, the grant included lands described as laik patit, that is, culturable fallow, in other cases, all the culturable lands were under cultivation and there was no culturable fallow. The cultivated lands were, in all cases, assessed at the full rate from the commencement the culturable fallow was not assessed with rent during the first two years. Consequently, in the first class of cases, the full rent did not become payable till after the expiry of two years; in the second class of cases the full amount became leviable from the commencement. We Set out here a specimen of a grant of each type: A Signed by mark Koresh. Pana. Daulat. Alabuksh, To Nara Narayan Roy, Deputy Collector, District Bhulua. Dowl bundbust talukdari in respect of Taluk Hashim Kashim Mullik, the owners whereof are Alabuksh, Koresh, Pana and Daulat, lying within the Government khas Mahal Chakla Chamarkhola Pargana Gopalpur Mirzanagar, settlement whereof was recently granted at the time of Srijut Babu Nara Narayan Roy, Deputy Collector, District Bhulua from the year 1243 B. S. and confirmed by the Commissioner. Finis. Dated the 31st August 1836 corresponding to the 17th Bhadra. 1243 B. S. Details. Quantity of land Rate per Kani. Amount of jama in Company's coin The bundbust is from the year 1243 B. S. k. Gds Kr. Kt. Rs. As. P. Rs. As. P. Total quantify of land as measured by the Amins with a rod of 16 cubits of 18 inches to a cubit, 12 such rods in Length and 10 such rods in breadth making a. Kani and 16 Kanis a Drone 9 1 3 2 Deduct Gar LaekPatit 0 3 3 1 Tank and Ditches, etc. 0 10 1 0 0 14 0 1 8 7 3 1 Remission allowed as held in abeyance on account of LaekPatit... 0 4 0 1 Hasil... 8 3 3 0 Deduct at the rate of 3 Kanis 4 Gandas per Drone according to the talukdari practice 1 12 3 0 6 11 0 0 3 3 3 20 15 8 Add Laek-abadi which was held in abeyance 0 4 0 1 Deduct at the usual rate of 3 Kanis 4 Gandas per Drone. 8 3 3 0 Deduct at the rate of 3 Kanis 4 Gandas per Drone according to the talukdari practice 1 12 3 0 6 11 0 0 3 3 3 20 15 8 Add Laek-abadi which was held in abeyance 0 4 0 1 Deduct at the usual rate of 3 Kanis 4 Gandas per Drone. 0 0 3 1 0 3 1 0 Remission allowed as bearing no rent from 1243 B. S. to 1244 B. S. Full amount (of rent) for 1245 B. S. and each year following 3 3 3 0 8 4 6 14 1 0 0 0 21 8 0 Jama from the year 1243 B. S. up to year 1244 B. S. Jama per annum from the year 1245 B.S. Per year. Jama brought forward Rs. 20-15-8. Rs. 21 8 0 Details of kistibund Rs. As. P. Rs. As P Kist Baisakh 0 12 0 0 12 Kist Joistha 0 12 0 0 12 0 Kist Assarh 1 8 0 1 8 0 Kist Sravan 3 0 0 3 0 0 Kist Bhadra 3 0 0 3 0 0 Kist Assin 3 0 0 3 0 0 Kist Kartik 2 0 0 2 0 0 Kist Aghrayan... 3 0 0 3 0 0 Kist Poush...... 3 8 0 3 8 0 Kist Magh 0 7 8 1 0 0 20 15 8 21 8 0 Remaining in possession at a total jama of Rs. 20-15-S pies in Company's coin per year from 1243 B. S. to 1244 B. S., at the full amount of jama of Rs. 21-8-0 in Company's coin per year from 1245 B. S., and for each year (following), we shall pay the aforesaid amounts of malguzari, year after year, and month after month, as per the kistbundi. We shall abide by the laws that are now in force and may be brought into operation in future. We shall not allow any bad character to reside in the aforesaid taluk nor allow any one to manufacture illicit salt, and shall not do anything contrary to law and regulations if we do, we shall be held responsible for the same. All profits and loss accruing through drought,......dation, death and desertion, and providential visitations, etc., shall be ours and shall have no concern with Government. Finis. Dated as above. 3. All profits and loss accruing through drought,......dation, death and desertion, and providential visitations, etc., shall be ours and shall have no concern with Government. Finis. Dated as above. 3. Having received a counter-part of this Dowl to my satisfaction, I grant this receipt-Dated the 12th December 1836. Sd.-Apsaruddi. on behalf of Talukdars. B (Sd.)-By mark Sadaraddi. Tomijaddi. Moniraddi. To Nara Narayan Roy, Deputy Collector, District Bhulua. Dowl bundabust talukdari in respect of Taluk Fatey Manu within Government khas Mehal Chakley Chamrakhola, Pargana Gopalpur, Mirzanagar, the owners whereof are Sadaraddi, Tomijaddi and Moniraddi by virtue of recent settlement granted at the time of Babu Nara Narayan Roy, Deputy Collector, District Bhulua, and confirmed by the Commissioner from the year 1243 B. S. Finis. Dated 31st August 1836 corresponding to 17th Bhadra 1243 B. S. Description. Total quantity of land. Rate Per Kani Amount of rent, in Company's coin. The settlement is from the year 1243 B. S. K. Gds Kr. Kt, Rs. As. P. Rs. As. P. Total quantity of land as measured by the Amins with a rod of 16 cubits of 18 inches to a cubit, 12 such rods in length and 10 such rods in breadth making a Kani and 16 Kanis a Drone 2 11 1 1 Deduct Gar Laek Patit 0 0 3 1 Tank and ditches, etc. 0 14 2 0 0 15 1 1 1 16 0 0 Remission allowed as held in abeyance on account of Laek Patit... 0 0 0 0 Hasil... 1 16 0 0 Deduct at the rate of 3 Kanis 4 Gandas per Drone according to tin talukdari Praetiee 0 7 0 2 3 3 3 4 9 11 1 8 3 1 Full rate of rent from the year 1243 B.S. and for each year (following) Details of Kists. Rs. As. P. Kist Assarh 1 0 0 Kist Bhadra 1 4 0 Kist kartik 1 8 0 Kist Poush 0 13 11 4 9 11 A talukdari settlement is made with us at the full amount of annual jama of Rs. 4 annas 9 and pies 11 from the year 1243 B. S. and for each year (following). Being in possession according to the practice of the talukdars, we shall pay the aforesaid amounts of malguzari, year after year, month after month, as per the kistbundi. 4 annas 9 and pies 11 from the year 1243 B. S. and for each year (following). Being in possession according to the practice of the talukdars, we shall pay the aforesaid amounts of malguzari, year after year, month after month, as per the kistbundi. If we default any kist, we shall pay interest according to law We shall abide by the laws and regulations now in force and also those that may come into operation in future. We shall not allow any bad character to live within the taluk aforesaid nor allow any one to manufacture illicit salt, nor shall we do anything contrary to laws and regulations. If we do so, we shall be answerable for the same. All profits and losses accruing from at. inundation, death and desertion, and providential visitation, etc., shall be ours, and these shall have no concern with Government. Finis. Dated as above. Having received to my satisfaction a counter-part of this Dowl, I grant this receipt. Finis. Dated 29th December 1836 (Sd.)-By Mark, Tomijuddi. 4. It will be observed that in both A and B, deduction was allowed for Gar Laek patit, that is, unculturable fallow; there was also a deduction of 3 Kanis 4 Gandas per Drone, that is, 20 per cent, according to talukdari practice. In " A " deduction was further allowed for Laek patit, that is, culturable fallow; but in " B " there was no such deduction, because all the culturable lands were hasil, that is, cultivated. The expression in A which has been rendered as " full amount of rent for 1245 B. S. and each year following " is in the vernacular, "San 1245 Sal 0 harsal purdastur." The term "purdastur" means "full customary rate," the word " harsal' means "all years to come." The two words taken together clearly show that the full rate was intended to be in operation so long as the tenure might subsist. Later on in the document, we find the rent for 1243 and 1214 described as saliana jama, that is, annual rent or rent per year. This is followed by the rent for 1245, which is described as jamakamel, meaning " the full amount of rent or the highest rent leviable." The expression jamakamel'' is preceded by the word saliana and is followed by harsal. This is followed by the rent for 1245, which is described as jamakamel, meaning " the full amount of rent or the highest rent leviable." The expression jamakamel'' is preceded by the word saliana and is followed by harsal. The three terms taken together unmistakably point to the conclusion that the rent payable in 1245 was the highest rent ever leviable. When we turn to " B," we come across similar expressions which indicate fixity of rent. On a consideration, then, of the terms of the grants, we come to the conclusion that the disputed tenures are held at fixed rates of rent; but the total amount payable in respect of each tenure varies with the area, as the settlement was made on the basis of area determined by measurement according to a carefully specified standard. 5. We may add that our attention has been invited to judicial decisions which are helpful only in so far as they formulate canons for the interpretation of documents of this description. Amongst these, special mention may be made of the decisions of the Judicial Committee in Dhanpat v. Gooman 11 M. I A. 433 (1867). Satyasaran v. Mahes 12 M. I A 263 (1868). Soorasoondcree v. Golam Ali 19 W. R. 141:15 B. L. E. 125 (1873). and Port Canning and Land Improvement Company, Ltd. v. Katyani Debi 24 C. W. N. 369. s. c. 82 C. L. J. 1 (1919). which were applied by this Court in Huro Prasad v. Chundee Churn I. L. R. 9 cal. 505 (1883) and Robert Watson & Co. v. Radhanath Singh 1 C. L. J. 572 (1905). Much stress was, however, laid on behalf of the Respondents on the decisions in Bhurut Chunder v. Gour Monee 11 W. R. 31 (1869).and Kaseemuddee v. Nadde Ali 11 W. R. 164; 2 B. L. R. 265 (1869);.where Loch and Hob-house, JJ., declined to follow the decision of Bayley and Phear, JJ., in Golam Alt v. Gopal Lal Thakoor 9 W. R. 65 (1868). which was subsequently affirmed by the Judicial Committee in Soorasoonderee v. Golam Ali 19 W. R. 141;15 B. L. E. 125 (1873). The decision of the Judicial Committee in Bamasoondery v. Radhika 13 M. I. A. 248 (1869). does not advance the case for the Respondents. which was subsequently affirmed by the Judicial Committee in Soorasoonderee v. Golam Ali 19 W. R. 141;15 B. L. E. 125 (1873). The decision of the Judicial Committee in Bamasoondery v. Radhika 13 M. I. A. 248 (1869). does not advance the case for the Respondents. No doubt a suit to enhance rent proceeds on the presumption that a zamindar holding under the Permanent Settlement has the right, from time to time, to raise the rents of all the rent paying lands within his zamindari, according to the pargana or current rates, unless either he is precluded from the exercise of that right by a contract binding on him or the lands in question can be brought within one of the exemptions recognised by Reg. VIII of 1793. Consequently, in each of these- cases, the nature of the tenure and the conditions under which it is held is the primary question, to be determined with reference to the documents and the circumstances disclosed therein. Here we have the grants themselves, and they show, in our opinion, that the rate of rent was fixed in perpetuity. It is unnecessary in these circumstances to rely upon the doctrine that fixity of rent may be presumed from uniformity of rent for a long series of years; Gulab v. Kumar.Kalanand 12 C. L. J. 107 (1910). Nityananda v. Nanda Kumar 13 C. L. J. 415 (1910). and Ramdayal v. Midnapur Zamindari Company 15 C. W. N 263 (1910). The question is, as put in Upendra Lal v. Jogesh Chandra 22 C. W. N. 275 (1917). which was applied in Makbul Ali v. Jogesh Chandra 30. L. J. 140 (1919). whether the landlord has precluded himself by his grant from claiming rent at an enhanced rate. The answer, on the documents in these cases, must be in favour of the tenants. 6. It was finally suggested that there was indication in the evidence that the rate of rent had varied from time to time and that on the principle recognised in Bamapada v. Midnapore Zamindari Co. 16 C. L. J. 22 (1912)., the tenures should be deemed to have been held at enhanceable rents. There is, however, no foundation for this contention. The total amount of rent in each case must, as we have seen, be dependent on the area. 16 C. L. J. 22 (1912)., the tenures should be deemed to have been held at enhanceable rents. There is, however, no foundation for this contention. The total amount of rent in each case must, as we have seen, be dependent on the area. But even if we assume that the total rent has varied, it has not been proved that the rate of rent has varied. We conclude accordingly that the Assistant Settlement Officer correctly held that the tenures were held at fixed rates of rent. In this view, no other question requires examination. The result is that these appeals are allowed, the decrees made by the Special Judge set aside and those made by the Assistant Settlement Officer restored with costs both here and in the lower Appellate Court. We assess the hearing-fee in this Court at one gold mohur in each case.