AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Agarwala, J.—The only question raised in this second appeal by defendant-appellant is with regard to the costs that have been awarded by the Court below.
The appeal arises out of a suit for rent. The plaintiffs alleged that the area of the holding was 1 bigha, IS cottas, 10 dhurs with a rental of Rs. 6-7-0 a year. The defendant alleged that the area was 2 bighas, 19 cottas, 4 dhurs with a rental of Rs. 6-11-0 and that the holding included plots Nos. 1201 and 1239. The first Court found for the defendant. The plaintiffs appealed and the appellate Court has held that the area is as alleged by the defence but that the holding does not include plots Nos. 1201 and 1239.
This second appeal appears to have been filed to challenge the decision of the Court below with regard to plots Nos. 1201 and 1239; but it is now conceded that the decision is a finding of fact which is binding on this Court in second appeal.
It is contended however that as the landlord did not state the free area of the holding in his plaint as required by Section 148(b), the defendant was obliged to contest the suit and therefore that he should not be compelled to pay the landlord''s costs. In cases where a landlord deliberately misstates the area of the holding in respect of which he claims rent, it is only fair that he should bear the costs of the litigation.
In the present instance however the plaintiff was a person who had purchased the interest of a cosharer after partition and in his plaint, in the present suit, he described the area of holding as it was described in the partition paper. Being a stranger he had no reason to doubt the accuracy of these papers.
It cannot be said therefore that this is a case in which the landlord deliberately misstated the area of the holding. The defendant necessitated the appeal in the Court below by claiming that plots Nos. 1201 and 1239 were included in his holding. But for that claim it would have been unnecessary for the plaintiff to appeal in the Court below and the appeal to this Court would also have been unnecessary.
In the circumstances I decline to interfere with the order for costs passed in the Court below and would dismiss this appeal with costs.