JUDGMENT Jack, J. - This appeal has arisen out of a suit for recovery of arrears of rent at the rate of Rs. 35-9-15 gandas-15 kags per year from the year 1335 to 1338. The suit was decreed in the trial Court, but in the Appellate Court it was dismissed on the ground that the Plaintiff had not succeeded in proving any relationship of landlord and tenant. The learned Judge has started off with a mistake by refusing to admit in evidence a certified copy of the patta by which the Plaintiff's predecessor, Khetramani, leased out her share of rental of Rs. 171 to Rashmani Dasi. The patta stood in the name of Kalachand, Rashmani's officer and it is alleged that he was the benamdar of Rashmani. Under the terms of this patta Rashmani was to pay rent and revenue and Rs. 71 was payable by Rashmani as rent. The original patta was not produced, but the Plaintiff's witness No. 1 deposed that he saw the original patta with the Defendant No. 1 and the trial Court stated that it had no reason to disbelieve this witness and so proper custody being proved, the certified copy, Ext. 8, was admitted in evidence. The learned Judge observes that the original patta is not forthcoming and we only have the evidence of P. W. 1 to prove that it ever did exist. He, therefore, rejects this evidence entirely. He takes it for granted that the patta not having been produced, the certified copy can-not be considered. This is really the Plaintiff's title deed and when the Plaintiff's title deed is discarded in this way, it is no wonder that the learned Additional District Judge comes to a wrong conclusion. There are two alternative courses, to send back' the case to the Judge for consideration after admitting the patta in evidence or to dispose of the case on the consideration of the evidence taken with the findings of the trial Court on the other points. This case has taken two years to come up to the Appellate Court and I are not at all disposed to send it back for re-hearing of the appeal. 2. This case has taken two years to come up to the Appellate Court and I are not at all disposed to send it back for re-hearing of the appeal. 2. I have perused the document in the case and I find that according to the trial Court it was then not denied and the trial Court found it to be proved that the Defendant is now the sole representative of Rashmani in respect of the land in dispute. It says that there cannot be any doubt that this patta of 1261 was executed by Kshetramani in favour of Rashmani. The learned Judge has not disturbed these findings. The judgments of previous rent suits which have been filed and admitted in evidence show that rent was realised in respect of this jama by the Plaintiffs 8 as. co-sharers and that the Plaintiff's officer in those cases proved that rent had also been realised by the Plaintiff. In addition to this, at any rate one rent counterfoil, Ext. 1, has been proved and it was accepted as genuine by the trial Court. About this the Appellate Court merely remarks that it is somewhat doubtful in character. The Judge gives no reason whatever for recording it as doubtful and in the circumstances his opinion that it is doubtful cannot carry much weight. It is clear that this patta has rebutted the presumption of the record-of-rights in which the Defendant is recorded as in possession of (sic)5 1/2 annas share. 3. There remains the f act that the Plaintiff's name was not recorded in the Land Registration Register and an objection under sec. 78 has been raised on behalf of the Defendant. But on the other hand under sec. 81 of the Land Registration Act rent can be realised by virtue of the contract, Ext. 8. It is urged that the contract therein referred to must be a contract between the parties themselves. In support of this, the ruling in the case of Iswar Chandra Bera v. Kali Charan Santra 27 C.L.J. 474 (1917) has been referred to. 81 of the Land Registration Act rent can be realised by virtue of the contract, Ext. 8. It is urged that the contract therein referred to must be a contract between the parties themselves. In support of this, the ruling in the case of Iswar Chandra Bera v. Kali Charan Santra 27 C.L.J. 474 (1917) has been referred to. But this view was not accepted in the later case of Mesbahuddin Ahmed Chowdhury v. Abdul Borkat Ahamadulla 34 C.L.J. 119 (1921) and intrinsically there seems to be no reason why the contract of the predecessors of the parties by which their successors are bound should not have exactly the same effect as the contract between the parties. The record shows that the Defendant systematically tried to evade the payment of rent to Plaintiff's co-sharer and it seems likely that he was trying to do the same with reference to the Plaintiff. In these circumstances the appeal is allowed, the judgment and the decree of the lower Appellate Court are set aside and those of the trial Court restored with costs throughout.