PADMA CHARAN NAIK Vs. ASUTOSH CHANDRA MITRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a second appeal from the final decree in a suit for accounts. The defendant Fakir Naik had been employed by the plaintiffs and their ancestor as tahsildar and treasurer, collecting rents from tenants, and also conducting a mahajani business for his employers. Fakir Naik, who had been sued as the managing member of a joint family, died after the preliminary decree of the trial Court while the appeal was pending but the suit continued against the surviving members of the joint family who were substituted as defendants. After the appeal against the preliminary decree had been dismissed, the account was taken by a Commissioner on whose report the Munsif made his final decree from which the defendants preferred an appeal, which was dismissed by the Subordinate Judge.

(2.) The learned advocate for the appellants argues in the first place that the whole of the proceedings in this suit are without jurisdiction, on the ground that the case is one falling for the greater part within the provisions of Section 193(b), Orissa Tenancy Act. It is there provided that: The Court of the Collector and no other Court may take cognizance of suits by landlords and others in respect of the rent of land against any agents employed by them in the management of land or the collection of rents or against sureties of such agents for money received, or accounts kept by such agents in the course of of such employment or for papers in their possession. The objection is one which ought to have been taken at an earlier stage in the litigation, but if the civil Courts have no jurisdiction, the final decree must be void and when this matter is thus brought to our notice, we are obliged to consider it. The learned advocate relies in the main upon a decision of a single Judge of this Court in Susila Bala Dassi V/s. Udaynath Mahanty AIR 1938 Pat 90, which was based upon the decision of the Divisional Bench in Secy. of State V/s. Natabar Mangaraj AIR 1927 Pat 254.

(3.) In Susila Bala Dassi V/s. Udaynath Mahanty AIR 1938 Pat 90, Rowland, J., had before him a case which on the facts stated appears to be very similar to the case which is now before us. The suit was instituted in the Court of the Subordinate Judge against a tahsildar who had collected rent and had also carried on paddy lending and money lending businesses. The Subordinate Judge held that the suit was maintainable in the civil Court only so far as it referred to money received in respect of paddy lending and money lending, and that so far as it referred to money received on account of collection of rent, it was within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Revenue Court.