Skip to content


Romaprosad Roy and ors. Vs. Shorup Paramanick - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectTenancy
CourtKolkata
Decided On
Judge
Reported in(1882)ILR8Cal712
AppellantRomaprosad Roy and ors.
RespondentShorup Paramanick
Cases Referred and Shaik Dilber v. Issen Chunder Roy
Excerpt:
beng. act viii of 1869, section 102 - suit for rent below rs. 100--landlord and tenant--special appeal. - .....in the suit and claimed the rent against the plaintiffs, we might have had jurisdiction to entertain the appeal; but as it is, we think we have no such power, and that the appeal must be dismissed with.....
Judgment:

Richard Garth, C.J.

1. In this case an objection has been taken by the respondent, that we have no jurisdiction to hear the appeal as it is for an amount under Rs. 100, and there is no question raised in it 'relating to a title to land as between parties having conflicting claims thereto.'

2. We think that this objection is a good one. We have been referred to two cases Hurry Mohun Mozoomdar v. Dwarkanath Sen 18 W.R. 42 and Shaik Dilber v. Issen Chunder Roy 21 W.R. 42 with which we entirely agree, and which appear to be directly in point. This being a case between landlord and tenant, there is no question of title as between parties having conflicting claims thereto. If the third person whose title was set up by the defendant, had intervened in the suit and claimed the rent against the plaintiffs, we might have had jurisdiction to entertain the appeal; but as it is, we think we have no such power, and that the appeal must be dismissed with costs.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //