1. This is a second appeal in a rent suit with a rule for consideration of the question of jurisdiction under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure in case no appeal lay.
2. The learned Munsif raised the question as to the rate of rent and the District Judge, therefore, after first holding that the plaintiff's suit must be dismissed in revision upon the gross error in the case subsequently held that by reason of this question of the amount of rent an appeal lay to him, and he, therefore, decided the appeal on its merits on the finding that there was no relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties.
3. It is clear that under Section 153, Civil Procedure Code, We have only to deal with the judgment and decree of the learned District Judge. We have nothing whatever to do with what questions were raised before the Munsif. As there was no question before the Judge of the rate of rent, we are of opinion that no appeal lies to us in the case the rent sued for being 15 rupees only.
4. The point of jurisdiction is based partly upon this error of the Judge which we have just referred to in dealing with the case first of all in revision, and we do not think that there is anything in this part of the objection, for he did eventually, as we have seen, deal with it on the merits as an appeal. But the main contention is that there was a previous decree on a solenamah between the parties and that that solenamah was the basis of the decree as evidenced by the entry in the register of civil suits. The decree itself was nearly 20 years ago and has been destroyed in the ordinary course
5. The question, therefore, before the Judge was whether this solenamah, if admissible as a public document, did operate as res judicata or as an admission by the defendant of the relationship of landlord and tenant. If it was a public document and if it operated as res judicata between the parties, it would undoubtedly be an error of jurisdiction or refusal by the Judge to exercise his jurisdiction if he did not consider it. He says that he could not consider it because it was only proved by the oral evidence of the plaintiff who was an interested party. If it was merely to be used as an admission, the learned Judge may be in error of law in refusing to admit it, but it would not be treated as a question of refusal to exercise jurisdiction It is only if the document had some legal effect upon the decision the case that its exclusion as evidence would be said to be an error by refusing to exercise jurisdiction The question of admission of evidence is not a question of jurisdiction, it is a question of law. We, therefore, think as it is admitted that no question of res judicata can arise upon this document, Section 115 cannot be applied to this case; but in justice to the parties we would go further and say that the solenamah appears upon the record and the Judge evidently read it and it contains no sort of admission of the relationship of landlord and tenant. It merely says that the parties agreed on that particular occasion that the claim of the plaintiff should be paid by the defendant without costs and without any further obligation express or implied. It is settled law that a decision as to the amount claimed in a rent suit cannot operate as res judicata, nor can it be any admission of the relationship of landlord and tenant. The learned Judge has decided that that relationship does not exist upon some further grounds with which we are not concerned. They are grounds of fact stated by him and they certainly raise no question under Section 115 Civil Procedure Code.
6. The appeal is, therefore, dismissed without costs, and the Rule is discharged with costs one gold mohur.