Skip to content


Brojonath Mittra Vs. Gopi Shakrani - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCivil;Property
CourtKolkata
Decided On
Judge
Reported in(1896)ILR23Cal835
AppellantBrojonath Mittra
RespondentGopi Shakrani
Excerpt:
provincial small cause courts act (ix of 1887), section 2, articles 8 anal 13 - calcutta municipal consolidation act (ii of 1888, b. c.) sections 117 and 119--suit to recover occupier's share of tax by the owner of a bustee--jurisdiction. - .....articles 8 and 13, article 8 provides that suits for the recovery of rent are not cognizable by courts of small causes, and article 13 provides that suits for the recovery of cesses and other dues which are payable to a person by reason of his interest in immoveable property on account of malikana, hakk and fees of that kind, are not cognizable by courts of small causes.2. as to article 13 we think it enough to say that no possible argument can be founded upon it. what is sued for here is not cess or dues of any kind, nor does it bear any resemblance to any of the matters mentioned in that article. as to article 8 the reason why this suit is not within that article is because this is not a suit for rent, and article 8 is expressly limited to suits for rent, and this is nothing of the.....
Judgment:

W. Comer Petheram, C.J.

1. The answer to this question will be that a suit by the proprietor of bustee land for the recovery of Municipal taxes from the owner of a hut in the bustee is cognizable by the Provincial Small Cause Court. The jurisdiction of the Small Cause Court is fixed by the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act (IX of 1887), and this gives Small Cause Courts jurisdiction in all suits, except such as are mentioned in the second schedule of that Act. The two articles of that schedule, which are relied upon here, are Articles 8 and 13, Article 8 provides that suits for the recovery of rent are not cognizable by Courts of Small Causes, and Article 13 provides that suits for the recovery of cesses and other dues which are payable to a person by reason of his interest in immoveable property on account of malikana, hakk and fees of that kind, are not cognizable by Courts of Small Causes.

2. As to Article 13 we think it enough to say that no possible argument can be founded upon it. What is sued for here is not cess or dues of any kind, nor does it bear any resemblance to any of the matters mentioned in that article. As to Article 8 the reason why this suit is not within that article is because this is not a suit for rent, and Article 8 is expressly limited to suits for rent, and this is nothing of the kind. The argument is founded on Section 119 of the Calcutta Municipal Act II (B.C.) of 1888, but that does not make the liability rent. The liability is created by the earlier sections which say that, if the owner of bustee land makes a payment, he may recover it from the owner of the hut, and that in itself would give him the remedy of an action upon the statutory law. What Section 119 provides is that he shall have, for the recovery of such sum, all such and the same remedies, powers, rights and authority as if such sum were rent payable to him. That gives a man certain powers, rights, &c;, hut can by no possibility turn a claim which is not rent into rent, and what is mentioned in the schedule is rent, and rent only. For these reasons we think that the answer we have given is the answer which ought to be given to this reference.


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