LAWS(PVC)-1923-3-120

ABINASH CHANDRA ROY Vs. FULCHAND CHAUDHURI

Decided On March 20, 1923
ABINASH CHANDRA ROY Appellant
V/S
FULCHAND CHAUDHURI Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiffs are the appellants before us and the facts, which have given rise to this appeal are, shortly stated, as follows: The plaintiffs, who are the landlords, instituted a suit, being Suit No. 984 of 1919, in the Court of the Munsif at Dubrajpur, for recovery of arrears of rent for the years 1322 to 1325 B.S. The jote, in respect of which the arrears of rent were claimed, stood in the names of two persons named Miran and Bishnu Chaudhuri. The parties, who were made defendants in the suit, contended that all the heirs of the said two recorded tenants had not been made defendants and accordingly the suit was incompetent.

(2.) The Court of first instance found that all the heirs of the said two recorded tenants were in possession of the jote, and that a son of Bishnu Chaudhuri and the heirs of other sons of Bishnu Chaudhuri and heirs of Miran Chaudhuri had not been made parties to the suit, and accordingly dismissed the suit, holding that it was bad for defect of parties.

(3.) The plaintiffs appealed to the learned District Judge of Birbhum, the appeal being numbered No. 19 of 1920. The lower Appellate Court observed as follows : "Then as regards the facts of the individual case under consideration I find it is not the plaintiffs case that there are other heirs, nor is it a fact that they sued some but gave up others. Their standpoint is that they have sued those who are in actual enjoyment of the suit lands and they are not aware of others in similar position. Now one of the guiding principles in all the cases referred to is, if a decree for rent be passed, it may act as res judicata and bind absent parties. There can be no such danger when a money decree is passed. Whether the decree passed is under Section 43 of the Contract Act or whether that section should be interpreted as strictly as it had been, are points which are not strictly relevant. In the proved facts of the case and the state of the law I have no doubt the orders passed are substantially sound and I am not inclined to interfere with them."