Skip to content


Gagan Chandra Das and anr. Vs. Ramdhan Dhar - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
CourtKolkata
Decided On
Judge
Reported in14Ind.Cas.735
AppellantGagan Chandra Das and anr.
RespondentRamdhan Dhar
Excerpt:
provincial small cause courts act (ix of 1887), schedule ii, article, 41 - contribution, suit for--decree for rent against registered tenant who is not interested in land in suit--money paid by him under decree--suit by him against real tenants--jurisdiction of small cause court --second appeal. - .....it is enough to say that the plaintiff now sues the persons, who were in fact interested in the land in respect of which the suit was brought. in the first court, it was held to be barred by limitation. in the second court, this judgment was set aside and his suit was decreed. the defendants now come before us in second appeal and a preliminary objection is raised that no second appeal lies in this case because the suit is one which might be tried by a small cause court and is under the value of rs. 500. the answer to this is that article 41, schedule ii to the provincial small cause courts act, enables such a suit to be brought, for this is a suit for contribution by co-sharers of a joint property; but looking into the facts of the case, it appears that article 41 is not applicable.....
Judgment:

1. In this case, on the 8th August 1904, the plaintiff was sued for rent of certain lands of which he was a registered tenant. A decree was passed ex parte in consequence of which he paid a certain sum of money in satisfaction of the decree. At the present moment, we need not follow the subsequent complication, but it is enough to say that the plaintiff now sues the persons, who were in fact interested in the land in respect of which the suit was brought. In the first Court, it was held to be barred by limitation. In the second Court, this judgment was set aside and his suit was decreed. The defendants now come before us in second appeal and a preliminary objection is raised that no second appeal lies in this case because the suit is one which might be tried by a Small Cause Court and is under the value of Rs. 500. The answer to this is that Article 41, Schedule II to the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, enables such a suit to be brought, for this is a suit for contribution by co-sharers of a joint property; but looking into the facts of the case, it appears that Article 41 is not applicable to this case for though the plaintiff is the registered tenant of the land in respect of which the suit was brought, he had not any interest in the land at the time of the suit. He does not sue as a co-sharer, and consequently the suit is one which might be brought in the Small Cause Court and no second appeal lies in this case.

2. The appeal is dismissed. We make no order as to costs.


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