Skip to content


Rango Roy Alias Rung Lal Roy Vs. Holloway and anr. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectTenancy
CourtKolkata
Decided On
Judge
Reported in(1899)ILR26Cal842
AppellantRango Roy Alias Rung Lal Roy
RespondentHolloway and anr.
Excerpt:
second appeal - cases cognizable in courts of small causes--civil procedure code (act xiv of 1882), section 586--landlord and tenant--bengal tenancy act (viii of 1885), section 144. - .....by a court of small causes, and that by virtue of the provisions of section 586 of the code of civil procedure a second appeal is barred.2. in answer to this objection reliance is placed by the learned vakil for the appellant on section 144 of the bengal tenancy act, where it is provided, 'the cause of action in all suits between landlord and tenant as such shall, for the purposes of the code of civil procedure, be deemed to have arisen within the local limits of the jurisdiction of the civil court which would have jurisdiction to entertain a suit for the possession of the tenure or holding in connection with which the suit is brought.' and it is argued that the inference to be drawn from that section is that all suits between landlord and tenant as such are to be regarded as suits.....
Judgment:

Hill and Rampini, JJ.

1. A preliminary objection has been raised by the learned Counsel for the respondents to the hearing of this appeal. It is contended that the suit is a suit of the nature cognizable by a Court of Small Causes, and that by virtue of the provisions of Section 586 of the Code of Civil Procedure a second appeal is barred.

2. In answer to this objection reliance is placed by the learned Vakil for the appellant on Section 144 of the Bengal Tenancy Act, where it is provided, 'The cause of action in all suits between landlord and tenant as such shall, for the purposes of the Code of Civil Procedure, be deemed to have arisen within the local limits of the jurisdiction of the Civil Court which would have jurisdiction to entertain a suit for the possession of the tenure or holding in connection with which the suit is brought.' And it is argued that the inference to be drawn from that section is that all suits between landlord and tenant as such are to be regarded as suits cognizable by ordinary Courts as distinguished from Courts of Small Causes, and this being a suit between landlord and tenant as such must be treated as a suit not in its nature cognizable by a Court of Small Causes.

3. The suit is brought under the provisions of Section 75 of the Bengal Tenancy Act for the recovery of the sum of Rs. 113-15 annas, which the plaintiff', the tenant of the defendant, claims in respect of excess payments made by him to or taken from him in respect of the rent of his holding by the defendant, and the suit may, therefore, no doubt be properly said to be a suit between landlord and tenant as such.

4. But in our opinion there is nothing in Section 144 of the Bengal Tenancy Act which overrides or tends to override the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure to which we have referred. All that Section 144 does is to determine the venue, but it has no bearing, so far as we are able to perceive, upon the question of the nature of the suit; it determines the jurisdiction within which suits are to be instituted, but beyond that it does not go. That this is a suit which would ordinarily be regarded as in its nature cognizable by a Court of Small Causes we think there can be no doubt, and there being nothing in Section 144 of the Bengal Tenancy Act to lead us to qualify that view in any respect, we think the suit is within the provisions of Section 586 of the Code of Civil Procedure, and a second appeal is, therefore, not open to the appellant We think consequently that the objection taken by the respondents must prevail and the appeal must be dismissed with costs.


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