rent suit of the year 1934. Therefore, unless the decree and auction sale is set aside, the plaintiffs are not entitled to any decree. The learned counsel further submitted that since exhibits- H and I have been marked without objection, the appellants cannot be permitted to object the admissibility of the said documents. So far exhibit-5 is concerned, which is a notice, according to learned counsel, it relates to Schedule-II property only and not Schedule-III property. So far schedule-III property is concerned, there is absolutely no evidence to show that the plaintiffs’ ancestors were the Bataidars and, as such, they continued for more than 12 years and have acquired occupancy rights. Moreover, if, in fact, they had occupied occupancy right, this relief would have been claimed by them under the Bihar Tenancy Act . The burden to prove that the plaintiffs were the Bataidars of Schedule-III lands was on the plaintiffs but in support of their claim, not a single document has been produced. So for exhibits-H and I are concerned, these documents are admitted by the plaintiffs in their pleadings. They pleaded that these documents are forged and fabricated but neither they produced the original nor they adduced any evidence. The defendants produced the documents, which were marked as exhibits without objection. Now, therefore, on mere technical grounds, the said documents cannot be discarded. Moreover, the documents are the certified copies obtained from the
