JADAB CHANDRA SANTRA Vs. GOPAL CHANDRA DEBNATH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The question which arises in this Rule is whether the Small Cause Court had jurisdiction to try the Suit. The plaintiff instituted the suit for recovery of a sum of Rs. 49 alleged to have been due as price of bhag paddy and straw. The plaint alleged that the land had been settled with the Defendant in the month, of Jaistha, and the Defendant had stipulated to deliver to the Plaintiff by the month of Falgoon a half share of the paddy and straw that would be grown on the land, and in case of default would be liable to deliver 25 per cent, more as bridhi or interest in accordance with local usage; that the defendant, in accordance with the aforesaid promise or stipulation, after having taken settlement of the land cultivated the land and grew paddy and straw of which the quantities were also stated and the price of half thereof was claimed together with interest as aforesaid. One of the objections taken in the written statement was that the suit was one for rent and so was not within the cognizance of the Small Cause Court. The Opposite Party in an affidavit filed in this Court has stated that this objection was not pressed at the hearing of this suit. This however is a question affecting the jurisdiction of the Court and there can be no waiver in a matter of this description.

(2.) The answer to this question would depend upon the determination of the question as to whether the Petitioner under the terms of the contract with the Opposite Party was a tenant or a servant, and in determining that question, the terms of the agreement and the whole of the circumstances must be taken into consideration.

(3.) On behalf of the Petitioner reliance has been placed upon the decisions of this Court in Shoma Mehta V/s. Rajani Biswas [1893] 1 C.W.N. 55 and Lalji Pandey V/s. Brahmadeo Pandey [1911] 16 C.W.N. 89 and upon the allegation in the plaint that the land had been settled with the Defendant and on the Plaintiff's evidence to the effect that it was so settled and on the finding of the Judge that the Defendant held the land. On behalf of the Opposite Party the cases of Kade Mandal V/s. Ahadali Molla [1910] 14 C.W.N. 629 and Sheikh Pokhan V/s. Rajani Kamal Chuckerbutty [1919] 23 C.W.N. 614 were relied upon.