HARAN CHANDRA CHAKRAVARTI Vs. KALIPRASANNA SARKAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal has bean preferred from an order of remand by which the Subordinate Judge, holding in an appeal that an amalnama, which had been filed by the defendants in the trial Court as evidence on their behalf and on the basis of which they succeeded in that Court, was not admissible, has remanded the suit to that Court for a fresh decision after taking such evidence as the parties may choose to adduce. The facts necessary to be stated are the following.

(2.) The plaintiff sued the defendants for a permanent injunction restraining the latter from erecting a pucca boundary wall on a small plot of land, and also a mandatory injunction calling upon them to demolish a pucca wall which they had already erected. These and other consequential and incidental reliefs were asked for on the basis of a declaration that was also sought to the effect that defendant 1 was a mere tenant-at-will with respect to the said plot of land.

(3.) On behalf of the defendants it was pleaded inter alia that defendant 1 is a permanent tenant on the land with his rental fixed and that he had accordingly a right to build pucca structures on the land. Other objections were also taken, but for the purposes of this appeal it is not necessary to set them out.