JUDGMENT Bomford J.M. 1. The decree-holder in this case raises the question whether rent recorded as said mutalba Should be taken into consideration in valuing property under the Regulation of Sales Act. He refers to several decisions of the Board of which the most apposite is Dharam Narain v. Durga Dei (1928) 12 R.D. 631. His point is that he suffers sufficient loss under the Act without the Court inflating the value of the property to be transferred with profits from rents which cannot be realised, once the tenants learn what is the law. 2. Neither party made reference to Dukhi Lodh v. Bijai Bahadur Singh (1930) 14 R.D. 91 wherein it was held that irregularly enhanced rent became payable when paid over a long series of years and attested in the settlement records. So I presume that there has been no attestation of the said mutalba. 3. But Respondent relies on Rule 2 of the Rules under the Act read with Para 458 of the Revenue Manual. Para 458 read: The market value of the proprietary rights in agricultural properties should usually be calculated on the basis of the profits of the proprietor i.e., his rental income, (actual and assumed) less land revenue and local rates. 4. Para. 459 begins: The proprietor's rental income is the total of the lollowtng items (a) cash rents paid by tenants... 5. Para. 460 says that the tenant's rental as recorded in the papers should usually be accepted unless there is reason to doubt its genuineness. 6. In this case however there is no question of basing calculations falsely on a lower rent then that actually paid, for no one denies that the whole recorded rent including said mutnlba is actually being paid at the moment. The question is whether "rental income" in Para 459 and cash rent paid in Para. 460 must be interpreted literally or whether the rent "paid" means the rent legally "payable." 7. Having regard to the fact that the Board's view is that rent means rent payable I think that the Paras, in the Land Revenue Manual should be interpreted on the same lines. It would be hard on the transferee to find that he could not collect rents which had been valued at Rs. Having regard to the fact that the Board's view is that rent means rent payable I think that the Paras, in the Land Revenue Manual should be interpreted on the same lines. It would be hard on the transferee to find that he could not collect rents which had been valued at Rs. 810 and it is of' course probable that the tenants will be informed of the fact that the zaid rent is not legally payable. 8. I would therefore allow the appeal and direct the Collector to exclude the zaid mutalba from his calculations of the profits. Appellant must get his costs and Rs. 10 pleader's fee. Darling S.M.-(November 25, 1936) 9. concur.