Judgment Agarwala, J. 1. This is an appeal by the plaintiffs against concurrent decisions of the Courts below. The appeal arises out of a suit for assessment of rent on two plots of homeatead land which the defendant hold under the plaintiffs otherwise than as parti of an agricultural holding which the defendants also hold under the plaintiffs. In the record of rights in the column describing the incidents of the tenancy of these homestead lands the entry is belagan, Both Courts have agreed in holding that the plaintiffs ace not entitled so have rent assessed on these two plots, because they are held free of rent. In appeal the learned advocate for the plaintiff appellants challenges this decision basing his contention on the well-known decision of the Privy Council in Jagdeo Narain Singh V/s. Baldeo Singh, AIR 1922 PC 272. The learned advocate contends that the Privy Council have laid it down as a general rule that whenever a laud within the ambit of a zammdari is assessed to revenue any one claiming to hold the land free of rent has the onus of doing so upon him, and he does not discharge this onus merely by showing that there is as only is the record of rights describing the land as held belagan. It is true that at one time it was conceded that this was the meaning of the deoision of the Privy Council in Jagdeo Narain Singhs case, 2 Pat. 33 : (A.I.R. (9) 1922 P. c. 272) and that decision was applied without question in Sameshwar Singh V/s. Sakhawat Ali, 17 P.l.t. 819 : (A. I. R. (24) 1937 Pat. 96). There ware two other Division Banch cages, however, in which the view held was that the Privy Council did not intend to go as far as it wag thought that they had gone. These two cases are Stonewigg V/s. Kameshwar Narayan Singh, 11 P.L.T. 444 : (A.I.R. (10) 1923 pat. 340) and Jodha Sahu V/s. Tirbena, Sahu, 11 P. L T. 468 : (A.I.R. (16) 1929 Pat. 748). Then again in Surput Singh V/s. Bhupendra Narayan Singh, 16 Pat. 105 : (A. I. R. (24) 1937 Pat. These two cases are Stonewigg V/s. Kameshwar Narayan Singh, 11 P.L.T. 444 : (A.I.R. (10) 1923 pat. 340) and Jodha Sahu V/s. Tirbena, Sahu, 11 P. L T. 468 : (A.I.R. (16) 1929 Pat. 748). Then again in Surput Singh V/s. Bhupendra Narayan Singh, 16 Pat. 105 : (A. I. R. (24) 1937 Pat. 165) it was pointed out that the statutory presumption of correctness attaching to an entry in the record of rights cannot be rebutted by another presumption under the general law, and that the decision of the Privy Council in Jagdeo Narain Singhs case, 2 Pat. 38 :(A.T.R. (9) 1932 P.C. 272) applied with reference to a claim by a person who had been entered in the record of rights as a malikanadar that he was entitled to hold his land free of rent. It appears that there are three Division Benches of this Court which have taken the view that the decision in Jagdeo Narain Singhs case, 2 Pat. 38 : (A.i.r. (9) 1922 P.c. 272) does not mean that the presumption of correctness attaching to record of rights is rebutted by showing that the land in respect of which rent is claimed or in respect of which assessment is claimed lisa in the plaintiffs zamindari. 2. As the present case comes from the diatrict of Saran, I have looked up the Settlement Report of the last settlement, 1893 to 1901, to ascertain in what same the Settlement Officer used the word "beligan" in respect of homestead land. In para. 133 at p. 44 of the Report the Settlement Officer says : "Another important point, which was raised during the first seasons operations in Saran, was regarding the entry of homeatead lands. The Hathwa Raj claimed that, according to the custom of the district, the home-stead lands of a raiyat did not form part of his agricultural holding, and it brought a test case under Sec.106 to have the point decided. This was tried by Mr. The Hathwa Raj claimed that, according to the custom of the district, the home-stead lands of a raiyat did not form part of his agricultural holding, and it brought a test case under Sec.106 to have the point decided. This was tried by Mr. Colvin, who found that, while it was a fact that homeatead lands do not form pact of the raiyats agricultural holding, the landlord has no power to charge rent for the homestead lands or to eject the raiyats from their houses so long as they remain in the village." In the column of incidents of the tenancy a note was added that the raiyats were entitled to hold the land rent-free, and he could not be ejected so long as he continued to cultivate the land in the village. The note referred to took the form of the word "belagan." At the end of the next paragraph of the Report is the following : "However, though Mr. Colvins orders applied originally only to the Hathwa Raj villages, they were accepted by the landlords and raiyats of all other estates in Saran and were applied to the district gene rally. The ralyats interests appear to be sufficiently protected by the note in Inaidents column." These observations in the Settlement Report of Saran leave no doubt at all so far as the present case is concerned. The officer responsible for the settlement used the word "belagan" in respect of homestead lands to mean "rent-free" and not merely land in respect of which no rent has been assessed, which is the literal meaning of the word. That being so, I have no doubt that the decision of the Courts below is correct. The appeal is dismissed with costs.