HEERA LALL PRAMANICK Vs. BARIKUNNISSA BIBEE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) So far as the merits of tins case are concerned, we are not called upon hero to adjudicate upon them. The Munsif hay determined the rate of rent which is payable by the defendant, and the District Judge, in his judgment of the 14th February 1877, says, that as regards the Munsifs decision on remand, in which the merits of the case were discussed and settled, the appellant did not raise any question before him.

(2.) The only point, therefore, which could be, or has in fact been, raised on special appeal in this Court is that of jurisdiction, which was determined in a former judgment of the Officiating Judge, dated the 13th of May 1876, in favour of the plaintiff. That judgment has been reversed by the learned Judge of this Court, and we have to consider the correctness of his judgment upon that point only.

(3.) The question arises in this way. The plaintiffs, in the year 1862, brought a resumption suit against the defendant's mother (under whom the defendant claims) in respect of the land in dispute, upon the ground that she was holding thorn by an invalid lakheraj title. The defendant in that suit contested the claim, but the plaintiff obtained a decree.