JUDGMENT Bomford J.M. 1. (July 28, 1937)-The Plaintiff zamindar filed a suit u/s 44 in respect of 5 plots. The Assistant Collector has not stated what issues he framed. It is essential that the issues as framed should form part of the judgment and it is even more essential that he should in framing the issues state on which party he puts the burden of proof. However he came to the conclusion that the Defendants had failed to prove admission. 2. The Commissioner remarked that so far as three plots were concerned the Defendants had no case. But he allowed their appeal in respect of Nos. 382 and 444. It is clear from his judgment that he was not much impressed by the oral evidence of admission. Neither am I. But he was impressed by the fact that in Kuvar 1339- say in October, 1931- Plaintiff gave the Defendants a receipt purporting to be a receipt for the whole rent. The Defendants admittedly were occupancy tenants of another holding paying Re. 1. The Commissioner argued that as the Defendants were shown as statutory tenant: in the papers of 1330, a receipt given in that year must be held to include the rent for that holding. I cannot follow the argument. It seems to me to big, the question. If the receipt had been for Rs. 3, half the rent recorded for those two fields, one might have accepted it as some proof of admission. But I fail to see how a receipt for an unspecified sum can be any proof of admission to any particular holding. I would add that no proof of any further payment of rent on this account has been produced. I cannot agree that the Defendants discharged the burden which lay on them. 3. I would set aside the order of the Commissioner and restore the order of the Assistant Collector with costs throughout and Rs. 15 pleaders' fee. Darling S.M. (August 6. 1937). I agree.