Skip to content


Mukunda Lal Roy and anr. Vs. Srimati Bhabasundari Debya Chowdhurani and anr. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
CourtKolkata
Decided On
Judge
Reported in47Ind.Cas.922
AppellantMukunda Lal Roy and anr.
RespondentSrimati Bhabasundari Debya Chowdhurani and anr.
Cases ReferredShilabati Debi v. Roderigues
Excerpt:
bengal tenancy act (viii of 1885), section 153 (b) - rent suit, dismissal of, on ground that relationship of landlord and tenant not established--appeal, whether lies. - .....had final powers under section 153(6) of the bengal tenancy act and the amount claimed in the rent suit wak rs. 19-11-0 only. the question on which this rule depends is, whether any appeal lay to the district judge. the point was raised in his court and he held that the decision of the suit involved a question of title or of the variation of the rate of rent. to this decision we are unable to agree. all that the munsif decided was that the relationship of landlord and tenant did not exist between the parties in respect of the jama for which rent was claimed in this suit. for authority that the decision on such a point is not sufficient to make the proviso to section 153 applicable, we may refer to the case of shilabati debi v. roderigues 35 c. 547 : 12 c.w.n. 448. plaintiff's case.....
Judgment:

1. This is a Rule calling upon the opposite party to show cause why the judgment and decree of the learned District Judge of Rangpur should not be set aside. The judgment and decree in question were passed in an appeal against a decision of the Munsif of Rangpur in a suit for rent. The Munsif in question had final powers under Section 153(6) of the Bengal Tenancy Act and the amount claimed in the rent suit wak Rs. 19-11-0 only. The question on which this Rule depends is, whether any appeal lay to the District Judge. The point was raised in his Court and he held that the decision of the suit involved a question of title or of the variation of the rate of rent. To this decision we are unable to agree. All that the Munsif decided was that the relationship of landlord and tenant did not exist between the parties in respect of the Jama for which rent was claimed in this suit. For authority that the decision on such a point is not sufficient to make the proviso to Section 153 applicable, we may refer to the case of Shilabati Debi v. Roderigues 35 C. 547 : 12 C.W.N. 448. Plaintiff's case was that the defendant held two Jamas under him one at Rs. 3-12-0 and one at Rs. 3-15-0, and the present suit was for arrears of the Jama of Rs. 3-15-0. .The defendant admitted holding one Jama at Rs. 3-12 0 only. On these pleadings the remark of the Munsif that in my thinking the Jama as claimed is identical with that alleged by the defendant' could not amount to a decision as to the rate of rent. The Munsif's remark, as it stands, is meaningless, since a Jama of Rs. 3-12-0 cannot be identical with a Jamma of Rs. 3-15-0, but apparently he meant that the land of the Jama admitted by the defendant was the Only land held by him under the plaintiff and that the rent of this was Rs. 3-12-0 only. But this was not a decision of a question of the amount annually payable by the tenant. The remark of the Munsif was incidental and had nothing to do with the decision of the suit, since the suit was bound to fail on the finding that the relationship of landlord and tenant did not exist between the parties in respect of the Jamma in suit. We accordingly hold that the order of the learned,District Judge was without jurisdiction, since no appeal lay to him. We accordingly set it aside and restore the decree of the Munsif with costs in this Court (which we assess at one gold mohur) and in the lower Appellate Court.


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