NARENDRA NATH SAMADDAR Vs. ANANDACHANDRA SHAHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiffs in the suit, in which this appeal has arisen, sought to have their title as tenants under the defendants declared in regard to lands comprised in four plots, C.S. plots Nos. 111, 114, 117 and 136, on the allegation that they appertained to a tenancy held by them under the defendants. The plaintiffs case was that they had been dispossessed by the defendants from plot No. 114, and accordingly they prayed for possession of the same. In regard to the other three plots, the plaintiffs prayer in the suit was for confirmation of possession. The claim in suit was resisted by the defendants, who asserted that the lands in suit were outside the tenancy of the plaintiffs, held under a kabuliyat executed in the year 1269 B.S., which included only C.S. plots Nos. 112, 113, 115 and 116. The Court below has passed a decree in favour of the plaintiffs, negativing the defence of the defendants. The defendants have appealed to this Court.

(2.) In view of the main ground urged in support of this appeal, bearing upon the applicability of the rule of res judicata, it is necessary to mention at the outset that there were previous suits for rent instituted by the defendants in the present suit, in which the kabuliyat, on which the defence of the defendants is based was held to be a genuine document and it was decided on the basis of that document that the lands now in suit comprised in C.S. plots Nos. 111, 114, 117 and 136 were included in the tenancy of the plaintiffs in this suit as claimed by them. In connexion with the question of res judicata, as raised in this case, the Court of first instance observed in its judgment that the suit was not over-valued so as to escape the bar of res judicata, that according to the evidence the valuation certainly does not err on the side of over-valuation. There is no indication in the judgment of the Court of appeal below, as was suggested before us during the course of argument that the Courts of the Munsifs, which tried the suits for rent instituted previously, were competent at the time when the previous suits were brought to try the present suit for declaration of title and for possession, as subsequently to the institution of the suits for rent, by rise in the value of the property those Courts ceased to be the proper Courts. No such case was made out, and the view expressed by the Court of first instance, to which reference has been made, affords sufficient reason for holding that the principle followed in the case of Gopi Nath Chobey V/s. Bhagwat Pershad (1884) 10 Cal 697 cannot be applied to the case before us. It cannot be held in this case that the Munsifs, who tried the previous suits for rent, were competent to try the present suit, if then brought, although on a subsequent date, by rise in the value of the property, the Courts of the Munsifs ceased to be the proper Courts, so far as pecuniary jurisdiction was concerned.

(3.) The case before us is not a case in which the observation of Mitter, J., in Gopi Nath's case (1884) 10 Cal 697, that the resonable construction of the words "in a Court of competent jurisdiction to try such subsequent suits," contained in Section 11, Civil P C was that it must refer to the jurisdiction of the Court at the time when the first suit was brought could be applied. In our judgment the learned District Judge, in the Court below, directed himself rightly in stating that the decision in the previous suits for rent, although not operating as res judicata, should be taken into consideration, and that weight should be attached to the same. This is the principle, which underlies the decision of their Lordships of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council in the case of Run Bahadur Singh V/s. Lucho Koer (1885) 11 Cal 391. We are further of opinion that adopting the rule laid down by the Judicial Committee in the case referred to above, a judgment in a suit for rent should not generally be held to be conclusive in a suit for declaration of title to property consequent upon an adverse decision given in a suit for rent in which final decision on questions of title should be avoided as far as practicable. In the case of rent suits proper, the subject is narrowed down to the function of rent Courts to the decision of whether rent is due for a particular period, for what lands, and at what rate. It appears to us that the learned Subordinate Judge, in the Court of first instance, approached the case before it from a correct standpoint, when he observed that there has been no finding as to the points involved in the present case, in any of the previous suits for rent, which might operate as res judicata. The question of genuineness or other wise of the kabuliyat of 1269 was considered and it was undoubtedly decided adversly to the plaintiff in the previous suit, (referring to Rent Suit No. 1300 of 1921, to which special reference has been made before us), but the finding on that question, arrived at in previous litigation, does not prevent a re- agitation of the same qusetion in this suit.