ATMARAM KANORIA Vs. R H WRIGHT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard the substance of the matter involved in this suit. out of which this award arisen is very short, there has been some complexity and swelling of the record because of the manner in which the case conducted on behalf of the parties and the manner in which the Courts below addressed themselves to the issues involved.

(2.) Mr. Atmaram Kanoria, the defendant. No. 1 in Title Suit No. 73 of 1976, out of which the present appeal arises, had filed Title Suit No. 136 of 1974 for ejectment against the plaintiff in the present Suit. That Suit was decreed ex parte against the present plaintiff, Mr. R. H. Wright. Then on 26.4.76, Mr. R. H. Wright filed Title Suit No. 73 of 1976 before the 2nd Subordinate Judge, Alipore, against Mr. Atmaram Kanoria and two others. Balai Chandra Law and Sugan Chand Saraogi were those two others. The plaintiff, Mr. R. H. Wright, prayed for the following reliefs for a declaration that the plaintiff was a tenant in respect of the Suit premises, for declaration who was the landlord of the plaintiff, for declaration of the sums were payable by the plaintiff to his landlord in respect of the Suit premises for a certain period, for declaration that the decree passed in Title Suit No. 136 of 1974 to the 2nd Subordinate Judge, Alipore, was vague, invalid, inoperative and not executable and for recovery of possession. The learned Subordinate Judge, who tried the Suit, dismissed the same by a judgment and decree, dated 30.5.83. There was an appeal to the Appellate Court. The learned Additional District Judge, 14th Court, Alipore, who heard the appeal, allowed the appeal and after setting aside the judgment and the decree of the learned Subordinate Judge,. decreed the plaintiff's Suit on contest against the defendant No. 1 and ex parte without costs against the rest. The plaintiff was declared still a tenant in respect of the Suit premises. It was also declared that the defendant No. 3, Sugan Chand Saraogi, was the landlord of the plaintiff appellant in respect of the Suit premises. The decree passed in Title Suit No. 136 of 1974 was also declared inoperative and not executable and the plaintiff was given the relief of recovery of possession. The plaintiff was also given a decree for damages, the actual amount of which was to be ascertained in a subsequent proceeding.

(3.) Against the judgment and decree of the learned First Appellate Court, the Second Appeal has been preferred.