Skip to content


Sheodhani Pandey and ors. Vs. Maharani Beni Pershad Koeri and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
CourtKolkata
Decided On
Judge
Reported in16Ind.Cas.935
AppellantSheodhani Pandey and ors.
RespondentMaharani Beni Pershad Koeri and ors.
Excerpt:
bengal tenancy act (viii of 1885), sections 105, 109 - suit concerning matter which has been subject of application under section 105. - .....of the plaintiff that there was no such record of rights as entitled the settlement officer to make the settlement of rent which he professed to make; and, secondly, that the settlement officer had no authority to make any addition to the rent by reason of his holding that there was excess land. both those points have been determined adversely to the plaintiff in both the lower, courts and also by mr. justice carnduff before whom this case came on appeal in the first instance. in our opinion, however, the suit should have been dismissed under section j09 of the bengal tenancy act, because this is a suit which concerns a matter which has been the subject of an application made and proceedings taken under section 105 of that act. a suit of such a character cannot be entertained by the.....
Judgment:

1. This appeal arises out of a suit brought to impugn that which was the subject-matter and the result of proceedings taken under Section 105 of the Bengal Tenancy Act. It is urged on the part of the plaintiff that there was no such Record of Rights as entitled the Settlement Officer to make the settlement of rent which he professed to make; and, secondly, that the Settlement Officer had no authority to make any addition to the rent by reason of his holding that there was excess land. Both those points have been determined adversely to the plaintiff in both the lower, Courts and also by Mr. Justice Carnduff before whom this case came on appeal in the first instance. In our opinion, however, the suit should have been dismissed under Section J09 of the Bengal Tenancy Act, because this is a suit which concerns a matter which has been the subject of an application made and proceedings taken under Section 105 of that Act. A suit of such a character cannot be entertained by the Civil Court under Section 109. It was, therefore, not open to the lower Courts or to Mr. Justice Carnduff to consider the merits of the case. All that could have been done was to dismiss the suit on the ground that it could not be entertained. We, therefore, confirm the decree, of dismissal, but only on the ground that the Courts had not the right to entertain this suit. How far it may be open to the present appellant in some ulterior proceeding to raise the objections that have been urged in this suit is a matter which it is premature for us to discuss or decide at this stage.

2 The result is that this appeal must be dismissed with costs.

3 This judgment, it is conceded, will govern the other appeals which are likewise dismissed with costs.


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