Skip to content


Sarbeswar Naik, Minor, by His Uncle and Next Friend Narendra Nath Naik and ors. Vs. Rajani Kanta Chakrabarty and anr. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectTenancy
CourtKolkata
Decided On
Judge
Reported in51Ind.Cas.981
AppellantSarbeswar Naik, Minor, by His Uncle and Next Friend Narendra Nath Naik and ors.
RespondentRajani Kanta Chakrabarty and anr.
Excerpt:
bengal tenancy act (viii b.c. of 1885), ch. x, part ii - landlord and tenant--rent, suit for--tenant, whether can dispute amount of rent settled by revenue officer. - .....both the lower courts have held that as the rent claimed by the plaintiffs was entered in the rent roll prepared under part ii, chapter x of the bengal tenancy act, it cannot now be disputed.2. it is contended on behalf of the appellants that the entry was not made under part ii of chapter x but under part iii. from the judgments of both the lower courts i cannot believe that it was ever disputed in either court that this entry was made under part ii. both the courts below referred to this as an ascertained fact, and the lower appellate court commenced its judgment by saying 'the rent was settled by a revenue officer under part ii of chapter x of the bengal tenancy act.' i cannot believe that the learned district judge would have made this statement in this form without any comment,.....
Judgment:

Newbould, J.

1. This appeal arises out of a rent suit, the point in dispute being as to the rate of rent. Both the lower Courts have held that as the rent claimed by the plaintiffs was entered in the rent roll prepared under Part II, Chapter X of the Bengal Tenancy Act, it cannot now be disputed.

2. It is contended on behalf of the appellants that the entry was not made under Part II of Chapter X but under Part III. From the judgments of both the lower Courts I cannot believe that it was ever disputed in either Court that this entry was made under Part II. Both the Courts below referred to this as an ascertained fact, and the lower Appellate Court commenced its judgment by saying 'The rent was settled by a Revenue Officer under Part II of Chapter X of the Bengal Tenancy Act.' I cannot believe that the learned District Judge would have made this statement in this form without any comment, if there had been any suggestion before him that the record had not been prepared under that p Article Farther, the learned Pleader for the respondents has been able to show me that there are some materials from which the lower Appellate Court might draw the presumption that the Record of Rights was prepared under Part II and not under Part III. I am not prepared to hold that both the lower Courts were wrong in their decisions. If the record was so prepared, it is not now disputed that the decisions are right.

3. The appeal is dimissed with costs.


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