Skip to content


Srimantes Lal Maity and ors. Vs. Sibu Raul and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
CourtKolkata
Decided On
Judge
Reported in37Ind.Cas.755
AppellantSrimantes Lal Maity and ors.
RespondentSibu Raul and ors.
Excerpt:
cess act (ix b.c. of 1880), sections 14, 20--suit for recovery of rent due under kabuliyat, whether comes under the act. - .....payable in paddy. the defendant in their written statement denied the paddy rent but admitted a cash rent of rs. 6-12-0. so, presumably, the only question to try was whether the rent was, as stated by the plaintiff, the paddy-rent or whether the story set up by the defendants that the rent was a cash rent of rs. 6-12-0 was correct. the learned judge of the lower appellate court found the rent to be a cash rent; but he has given a smaller rent than that admitted by the defendants and the ground on which he has done so is that be considers that by reason of section 20 of the cess act, ix(b. c.) of 1880, the court is precluded from giving the plaintiff a larger amount than the amount mentioned in the cess return, the question is: ' is the view of the learned judge right as regards that'.....
Judgment:

1. This is an appeal from the judgment of the learned Additional District Judge of Midnapur, dated the 22nd August 1914 reversing the decision of the Munsif. The suit was brought to recover certain rent alleged to have been dug under a kabuliyat, the rent being payable in paddy. The defendant in their written statement denied the paddy rent but admitted a cash rent of Rs. 6-12-0. So, presumably, the only question to try was whether the rent was, as stated by the plaintiff, the paddy-rent or whether the story set up by the defendants that the rent was a cash rent of Rs. 6-12-0 was correct. The learned Judge of the lower Appellate Court found the rent to be a cash rent; but he has given a smaller rent than that admitted by the defendants and the ground on which he has done so is that be considers that by reason of Section 20 of the Cess Act, IX(B. C.) of 1880, the Court is precluded from giving the plaintiff a larger amount than the amount mentioned in the cess return, The question is: ' Is the view of the learned Judge right as regards that' Apparently no issue was settled as regards that point and the learned Judge acted on the materials that were before him. But so far as we can see, this case does not come under Section 14 of the Act and, therefore, the plaintiff is not limited to recover the amount mentioned in the cess return. In that view of the case, the admission of the defendants that the amount is Rs. 6-12-0 must be acted on and the decree appealed from will be varied by allowing rent at Rs. 6-12-0 instead of at Rs. 3-15-0. The parties will receive and pay costs in proportion to their respective success and failure.


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