https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=277869 Revenue settlement entries made under Regulation VII of 1822 and Act XXXI of 1858 were evidentiary for revenue purposes only; the revenue authority had no power to fix rent contrary to a subsisting landlord-tenant contract. The settlement entry was therefore not conclusive, but only presumptively correct when made within jurisdiction, and it could be challenged in a regular civil suit, including as a defence to a landlord's claim for rent. The landlord's suit failed because the entry could not override the contract. en-us Thu, 03 Mar 1949 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 27 Dec 2018 15:23:21 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=277869 Revenue settlement entries made under Regulation VII of 1822 and Act XXXI of 1858 were evidentiary for revenue purposes only; the revenue authority had no power to fix rent contrary to a subsisting landlord-tenant contract. The settlement entry was therefore not conclusive, but only presumptively correct when made within jurisdiction, and it could be challenged in a regular civil suit, including as a defence to a landlord's claim for rent. The landlord's suit failed because the entry could not override the contract. Case-Laws Indian Laws Thu, 03 Mar 1949 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=277869