SURENDRA NATH KARANDEO Vs. DIGAMBAR PATHAK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The only question argued in this appeal is whether the decree obtained by defendant 8 in Rent Suit no. 809 of 1940-41 operated as a rent decree or as a money decree.

(2.) On behalf of the appellant, Mr. J.M. Ghosh properly conceded that if it be held that the decree had the force of a money decree this appeal must fail. If not, it is manifest that this appeal should succeed.

(3.) The appeal had been remanded by the High Court to the learned Subordinate Judge for rehearing the parties and