Skip to content


Srinath Pal Chowdhury Vs. Girindra Chandra Pal Chowdhury and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCivil
CourtKolkata
Decided On
Judge
Reported in6Ind.Cas.598
AppellantSrinath Pal Chowdhury
RespondentGirindra Chandra Pal Chowdhury and ors.
Cases ReferredAnanda Chandra Bose v. L.P.D. Broughton
Excerpt:
civil procedure code (act xiv of 1882), section 596 - privy council appeal--appealable value--decree involving indirectly question respecting property of required value. - .....mouzahs including the holding in respect of which the suit for rent was brought which yield an annual rent of rs. 800 and odd, in respect of the share of, the plaintiff, and that the defendants nos. 6 to 13 similarly hold other holdings the annual rent payable in respect of which on account of the plaintiff's share is rs. 500 and odd. and the contention that the plaintiff raises is that by reason of the decree that has been made by this court, he, the plaintiff, has been deprived of his claim to annual rent to the extent of rs. 1,400 and odd; and that if such rent be capitalised it would far exceed the sum of rs. 10,000. it is very doubtful whether he is entitled to take into account the annual rent payable by the defendants nos. 6 to 10. but we think he is entitled to reckon that.....
Judgment:

1. This is an application for leave to appeal to His Majesty in Council. The amount involved in the suit itself is indeed very small. It is Rs. 230 and the question we have to determine on the present occasion is whether the decree involves directly or indirectly some claim or question to or respecting property of the value of Bs. 10,000 or upwards within the meaning of Section 596 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

2. The decree of this Court we might here mention reversed the decree of the Court below and, therefore, the appellant would be entitled to a certificate if he can show that he decree appealed against involves directly or indirectly some claim or question to or respecting property of the value of Rs. 10,000 or upwards. It appears that the plaintiffs or the defendant Nos. 1 to 5 as aslo defendants Nos. 6 to 10 are co-sharers in certain zemindaris. These co-sharers purchased for themselves different holdings from different tenants and the plaintiff sought to recover from defendants Nos. 1 to 5 the share of the rent payable by them to him the plaintiff as zemindar.

3. This Court has dismissed the suit on the ground that inasmuch as there was no contract between defendants Nos. 1 to 5 and the plaintiff for payment of any rent by one to the other there was no relationship of landlord and tenant between them and, therefore, the suit for rent could not be maintained, and that the only remedy which the plaintiff has is to recover his share of the profits of the land held by defendants Nos. 1 to 5. It appears, however, upon the affidavit produced on behalf of the petitioners, and so far as this matter is concerned it is not contradicted by the affidavit of the other side, that the defendants hold by purchase various holdings in different mouzahs including the holding in respect of which the suit for rent was brought which yield an annual rent of Rs. 800 and odd, in respect of the share of, the plaintiff, and that the defendants Nos. 6 to 13 similarly hold other holdings the annual rent payable in respect of which on account of the plaintiff's share is Rs. 500 and odd. And the contention that the plaintiff raises is that by reason of the decree that has been made by this Court, he, the plaintiff, has been deprived of his claim to annual rent to the extent of Rs. 1,400 and odd; and that if such rent be capitalised it would far exceed the sum of Rs. 10,000. It is very doubtful whether he is entitled to take into account the annual rent payable by the defendants Nos. 6 to 10. But we think he is entitled to reckon that which is payable by the defendants Nos. 1 to 5 which amounts to Rs. 800 and odd in respect of the holdings in their occupation in the zemindari owned by the plaintiff as part owners.

4. No doubt this Court has held that the plaintiff may recover from the defendants Nos. 1 to 5 his share of the profits of the land held by them. But there can, we think, be no question that by reason of this decree the plaintiff has lost his right as a zemindar in respect of the holdings now in the occupation of defendants. He cannot recover hereafter from these defendants any rent that may be payable for the lands in respect of which the suit was brought, nor can he recover any rent for other lands held by them in the same zemindari.

5. If this is the correct view of the case, it seems to us that the annual loss sustained by him by reason of the decree passed by this Court which is Rs. 800 and upwards should be capitalized in order to determine whether the decree involves indirectly some claim or question to or respecting property of the value of Rs. 10,000 or upwards. This leads us to the question what may be the capitalized value of the interest which the plaintiff has lost. The affidavit on the part of the plaintiff states that such capitalized value is 15 or 20 years' purchase, whereas the defendants' affidavit says it is 8 years' purchase. We think it fair to take the capitalized value at 15 years' purchase and it would appear that the Value is Rs. 12,000.

6. The view that we have adopted is supported by the case of Ananda Chandra Bose v. L.P.D. Broughton 9 B.L.R. 423, where leave to appeal was granted because the judgment of the High Court would govern the decisions in the other suits which plaintiff intended to bring on precisely the same grounds, and in respect of which precisely the same questions would arise as had arisen in the suit sought to be appealed. Upon these grounds we are of opinion that the case fulfils the requirements of Section 596 of the Code of Civil Procedure and we direct that the certificate contemplated by the section be granted to the petitioner.


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