Skip to content


Jatra Mohatst Nandi Vs. Pitambar Mistri - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
CourtKolkata
Decided On
Judge
Reported in25Ind.Cas.543
AppellantJatra Mohatst Nandi
RespondentPitambar Mistri
Cases ReferredDabee Pershad v. Joy Loll Chowdhury
Excerpt:
judgment - lower appellate court setting aside judgment of first court not bound to dispose of all reasons given by first court. - .....b. there was an appeal from the decree of dismissal by the munsif, and the case came before the district judge of chittagong. in the opinion of the district judge exhibits a and b are not shown to have any relevance to the case; and, on the strenght of an entry in the khatian and the presumption to which it legally gave rise, he held the relationship of landlord and tenant had been established, and he accordingly set aside the decree of the munsif and decreed the appeal. the effect of that apparently was that the claim as made by the plaintiff was decreed, that is to say, not only was the relationship of landlord and tenant established, but rent at the rate of. twelve annas was decreed to be paid. there was an appeal to this court and mr. justice richardson thought that the learned.....
Judgment:

1. This is a Letters Patent Appeal arising out of a rent suit valued at Rs. 3. It has already passed through three Courts and is now in the fourth, and unless we can interfere with it, it will go to a fifth Court with the further prospect of going to a sixth and seventh. But we think we can put a stop to this.

2. The main contention in this suit was, whether the relationship of landlord and tenant existed between the litigants. The Munsif who decided in the defendants' favour held that the defendants and their predecessor had held the land,, for which rent is claimed by the plaintiff, for a long period in the assertion of the malihi right. That conclusion was based on two documents, Exhibits A and B. There was an appeal from the decree of dismissal by the Munsif, and the case came before the District Judge of Chittagong. In the opinion of the District Judge Exhibits A and B are not shown to have any relevance to the case; and, on the strenght of an entry in the khatian and the presumption to which it legally gave rise, he held the relationship of landlord and tenant had been established, and he accordingly set aside the decree of the Munsif and decreed the appeal. The effect of that apparently was that the claim as made by the plaintiff was decreed, that is to say, not only was the relationship of landlord and tenant established, but rent at the rate of. twelve annas was decreed to be paid. There was an appeal to this Court and Mr. Justice Richardson thought that the learned District Judge had not really considered the defendants' claim to the maliki right by adverse possession. In this connection I would cite, what was said in Dabee Pershad v. Joy Loll Chowdhury 12 W.R. 361 at p. 362 to the effect that the lower Appellate Court is not bound to dispose seriatim of all the reasons given by the first Court, if he gave special reasons of his own for coming to an opposite conclusion. The learned District Judge, in my opinion, certainly gave special reasons of his own for holding that the relationship of landlord and tenant had been established, and that was a reason which was good in law: and I am inclined to think that, in effect, he did dispose of the reasons given by the Munsif. Whether he did so or not, I am satisfied that he gave sufficient reason for his own conclusion. In the circumstances I do not think there was any justification for interfering with the decree of the lower Appellate Court which is Complete in itself and self-contained. I say that although it has* been brought to our notice that. the learned Judge does not discuss the question whether the rate of rent would be six or twelve annas, the fact is that that was not a point at issue between the parties the real contest was whether or not the relationship existed.

3. For these reasons I think that we ought to reverse the judgment of Mr. Justice Richardson and confirm the decree of the District Judge.

4. The appellant before us will receive his costs of both appeals in this Court.


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