Skip to content


Prasanna Kumar Banerjee for Self and as Executor to the Estate of the Late Hem Chunder Banerjee Vs. Srinath Dass and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectTenancy;Civil
CourtKolkata
Decided On
Judge
Reported in(1888)ILR15Cal231
AppellantPrasanna Kumar Banerjee for Self and as Executor to the Estate of the Late Hem Chunder Banerjee
RespondentSrinath Dass and ors.
Excerpt:
bengal tenancy act (viii of 1885), section 153 - appeals in rent suits--appeal from order of district judge. - 1. these are appeals against four orders of the district judge of the 24-perguanahs, remanding the eases to the court of first instance to record evidence and to decide, as a fact, whether the plaintiff is entitled to collect a 10 annas' or a 16 annas' share of the rent.2. a preliminary objection has been taken that in these oases a second appeal is barred by the provisions of section 153 of the bengal tenancy act, the order in question having been made by the district judge, and the amount claimed in the suit not exceeding es. 100.3. it is contended that the order of remand has not strictly decided any question at all. but it appears to us virtually it does decide a question. the first court had held that the question whether the plaintiffs ought to recover 16 annas of the rent had been.....
Judgment:

1. These are appeals against four orders of the District Judge of the 24-Perguanahs, remanding the eases to the Court of first instance to record evidence and to decide, as a fact, whether the plaintiff is entitled to collect a 10 annas' or a 16 annas' share of the rent.

2. A preliminary objection has been taken that in these oases a second appeal is barred by the provisions of Section 153 of the Bengal Tenancy Act, the order in question having been made by the District Judge, and the amount claimed in the suit not exceeding Es. 100.

3. It is contended that the order of remand has not strictly decided any question at all. But it appears to us virtually it does decide a question. The first Court had held that the question whether the plaintiffs ought to recover 16 annas of the rent had been decided in their favour by a previous decision of the Subordinate Judge. The District Judge, however, has held that that decision was set aside, by this Court, and that therefore the matter was not res judicata. But it appears to us that this question is not ' a question relating to title to land, or to some interest in land as between parties having conflicting claims thereto;' nor is it 'a question of the amount of rent annually payable by a tenant.' 'We understand these words to mean the total amount of rent annually payable in respect of a jumma or holding, and not the amount of rent which may be payable to any particular co-sharer in the property. That being so, we are of opinion that there is no second appeal in these cases.

4. We accordingly dismiss these appeals with costs.


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