Skip to content


Cheodditti Vs. Tulsi Singh - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectTenancy
CourtKolkata
Decided On
Judge
Reported in(1913)ILR40Cal428
AppellantCheodditti
RespondentTulsi Singh
Cases Referred and Janardhan Misser v. J. Barclay Appeal
Excerpt:
suit - bengal tenancy act (viii) of 1885, sections 30(b) 37, 105, 107, 109--whether an application under section 105 of the act, a suit--withdrawal of an application under that section, effect of--subsequent suit for enhancement of rent under section 30(b), whether maintainable. - chitty and teunon, jj.1. this appeal by the plaintiff arises out of a suit for rent in which the plaintiff also claimed enhancement on account of an alleged rise in the price of staple food crops, under section 30 (6) of the bengal tenancy act. the plaintiff obtained a decree for the arrears of rent, but his claim to enhancement was rejected by both courts on the ground that he had previously preferred an application for the same relief under section 105, it is admitted that an application under section 105 was preferred in 1906. the plaintiff did not, or could not, proceed with it, and accordingly applied for leave to withdraw it. this was allowed, but no leave was reserved to him to prefer a fresh application. he appealed on this point, and his appeal was dismissed on 3rd april, 1907......
Judgment:

Chitty and Teunon, JJ.

1. This appeal by the plaintiff arises out of a suit for rent in which the plaintiff also claimed enhancement on account of an alleged rise in the price of staple food crops, under Section 30 (6) of the Bengal Tenancy Act. The plaintiff obtained a decree for the arrears of rent, but his claim to enhancement was rejected by both Courts on the ground that he had previously preferred an application for the same relief under Section 105, it is admitted that an application under Section 105 was preferred in 1906. The plaintiff did not, or could not, proceed with it, and accordingly applied for leave to withdraw it. This was allowed, but no leave was reserved to him to prefer a fresh application. He appealed on this point, and his appeal was dismissed on 3rd April, 1907. On 7th January he filed the present suit. In our opinion, an application under Section 105 cannot be regarded as a suit. The cases of Upadhya Thakur v. Persidh Singh (1896) I.L.R. 23 Calc. 723 and Janardhan Misser v. J. Barclay Appeal from Order 31 of 1900 Unreported, decided with reference to Section 104 (2) of the Act, as it originally stood, support this view. There does not appear to be any distinction between that and the present section, so far as this point is concerned.

2. Further, the application under Section 105 having been withdrawn, it must be regarded as having been non-existent. There was no order passed under it which could be said to have the force and effect of a decree under Section, 107, nor can it be said that there was a suit which was dismissed on the merits. The application under Section 105 may have been withdrawn, under the provisions of Order XXIII of the Civil Procedure Code, but that would not convert it into a suit, which would bar a subsequent suit by reason of no leave to file such subsequent suit having been reserved. Moreover, it cannot well be said that the subject-matter of the application made in 1906 and the subject-matter of the suit brought in 1909 are the same. In the above view of the case, Section 37 and Section 109 of the Bengal Tenancy Act have no application. The appeal must be allowed, the decrees in both the Courts set aside, and the case remanded to the Court of first instance for a trial on the merits of the plaintiff's claim to enhancement of rent. Cost of this appeal to be costs in the case.


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