AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Ghose and Stevens, JJ.—The learned Vakil for the appellant has very fairly stated his case; but it appears to us that there is really no ground for our interference with the judgment of the Court below.
The only question of law that arises in this appeal is as regards the binding effect of the order of the Revenue Officer made u/s 107 of the Bengal Tenancy Act in respect of the rent of what is described in the proceedings in this case as the mourasi jote. The Revenue Officer, under the provisions of that section, determined that the jama payable for the said jote was Rs. 29-1 anna. This determination, according to Section 107, has the force and effect of a decree of a Civil Court in a suit between the parties. That section, as also Section 108 of the Act, lay down how a decision of a Revenue Officer may be questioned or set aside; and when the decision of the Revenue Officer with which we are concerned was not set aside, by appeal or otherwise, it must be taken that his determination as to the jama payable for the jote in question is final. This is the view that was accepted by a Divisional Bench of this Court in the case of Joypal Dhobi v. Palukdhari Das (1898) 2 C.W.N., 491. (See also Gokhul Sahu v. Jodu Nundun Roy, I.L.R., 17 Cal 721 a view with which we concur.
As regards the rent of the other jamas, we think that the Appellate Court has come to a right conclusion, and so also as regards the plea of payment raised by the defendants.
Upon these grounds we think this appeal fails, and we dismiss it with costs.