JUDGMENT Chakravarti, J. - These two appeals are by the Defendants and they arise out of two suits brought by the Plaintiffs for recovery of cash rent and also for what really are damages for non-delivery of paddy under a contract between the Plaintiffs and the Defendants. The defence of the Defendants was that on a true and proper construction of the contract between the parties the claim for damages for non-delivery of paddy ought not to have been allowed to the Plaintiffs. 2. The Court of first instance gave effect to this plea and gave a decree for money as rent and no damages for non-delivery of paddy. 3. On appeal to the Subordinate Judge by the Plaintiffs, the learned Subordinate Judge has given a decree to the Plaintiffs as claimed by them, that is, for rent and also for damages for non-delivery of the paddy agreed to be delivered by the Defendants under the contract. 4. The learned vakil who appeared for the Defendants, Appellants in this Court, contended that on a true and proper construction of the contract the Court of Appeal below ought to have held that the Plaintiffs were not entitled to insist upon the delivery of paddy but they ought to have got only money which was provided for as an alternative in case of non-delivery of paddy by the Defendants. 5. The learned Subordinate Judge in considering the kabuliyat says as follows :-- But if the intention was to deliver the paddy in kind and there was no option left to the tenant, then certainly the landlord could be entitled to the market-value of the paddy deliverable by the tenant. In the particular kabuliyat with which we are concerned, the intention has been given in unmistakable language that unless the lands remained wholly patit, the tenant would not pay anything but the paddy. 6. In my opinion the construction put by the learned Subordinate Judge upon the terms of this contract is correct. The words in the contract make it absolutely clear that in all years the tenant bound himself to deliver the paddy as provided in the contract, and that only in the event of there being no paddy grown on the land the Defendants were entitled to pay money in the alternative. The words in the contract make it absolutely clear that in all years the tenant bound himself to deliver the paddy as provided in the contract, and that only in the event of there being no paddy grown on the land the Defendants were entitled to pay money in the alternative. The learned vakil for the Appellants has very candidly admitted that if his contention as to the construction of the kabuliyat fails there is no other question upon which he could rely. 7. The result is that these appeals are dismissed with costs. Sanderson, C.J. 8. I agree with the judgment of my learned brother. 9. The appeals depend upon the intention of the parties as disclosed by the kabuliyat. On the true construction of the kabuliyat I agree that the intention of the parties was that indicated by my learned brother; and consequently to entitle the Defendants to pay the value of the paddy, it would have been necessary for them to prove that the lands remained wholly patit and in that respect the Defendants failed entirely. The result is that I agree that the appeals must be dismissed with costs.