Ganga Singh vs Raghunandan Das and Others

Chapman, J.—This is an appeal in a rent suit. The tenant alleged that the rent was payable and that it had actually been paid by an intermediate tenure-holder named Kali Singh.

The Court of first appeal held that there was no such intermediate tenure in actual existence and overruled the objection. Kali Singh was not made a party to the suit. The amount claimed in suit does not exceed Rs. 100. No second appeal lies to this Court, unless it can be held that the decision in respect of this intermediate tenure was a decision on a question relating to some interest in land as between parties having conflicting claims thereto u/s 153 of the Bengal Tenancy Act. The decision no doubt was a decision in a question relating to some interest in land, but it was not a decision of that question as between parties having conflicting claims therein, for Kali Singh was not made a party to that suit. It was then contended that this was not a suit for rent under the Bengal Tenancy Act and that, therefore, Section 153 has no application and that a second appeal would lie under the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure.

It is said that the plaintiffs who obtained the decree were assignees and, therefore, they were not landholders and the provisions of the Bengal Tenancy Act do not apply.

It appears that the suit was instituted by a Hindu widow for rent due for certain kists in the year 1912. During the pendency of the suit she executed a surrender in favour of her daughter''s sons; the daughter also executed a deed confirming the surrender. Thereafter the widow died and after her death the daughter''s sons made an application to be substituted in the suit. These daughter''s sons were the plaintiffs who obtained the decree. It is clear that at the time that they were substituted as plaintiffs they claimed to be landlords and not merely the assignees of the right of Gulab Kuer to sue for the arrears of 1912. It is not in fact suggested that there was any particular assignment of the right to sue for the arrears. Their claim to the arrears is based upon an alleged transfer of the entire estate held by Gulab Kuer to the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs claimed transfer as landlords and that being so the suit was under the Bengal Tenancy Act. The second appeal is, therefore, dismissed.

There is an application for revision, but I am not satisfied that any ground for revision has been made out. It has been argued that the Court went beyond its jurisdiction in deciding the question of the plaintiffs'' right to sue upon actual possession. Whether the Court was wrong or right in confining its attention to actual possession it had jurisdiction to determine the case in that manner. So far as the question of the existence of the intermediate tenure was concerned, the Court came to a finding that the mokarari deed was a dead letter and has never been given effect to. It is not possible to say that in coming to that finding and in deciding the case accordingly the Court had committed any error of jurisdiction. The application for revision is also dismissed.