BHABATARINI DEVI Vs. ROY KIRAN CHANDRA ROY BAHADUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two appeals arise from two rent suits. The suits relate to two successive periods, one from Baisakh 1319 to Pous 1322, and the other from Magh 1322 to the end of 1325. The annual rent is Rs. 345, so with the addition of a claim for damages at the rate of 25 per centum the claim in each suit is well above Rs. 1,000.

(2.) The defendant-appellant's case is that the plaintiff-landlord has dispossessed them from three of the plots comprised in the tenancy and leased those three plots to another party and on that account they say that they are entitled to a suspension of rent. As to the truth of their allegation, they refer to the decision in a previous suit for rent in respect of the same tenancy. That suit was for a shorter period and the amount claimed was less than Rs. 1,000 and the suit was tried and determined by a Munsif whose pecuniary jurisdiction did not go beyond Rs. 1,000. That officer, therefore, would not have been competent to try these two suits and on that account the Courts below have held that a decision in the former suit does not operate as res judicata. After rejecting this argument they have come to the conclusion that the plaintiffs have not dispossessed the defendants from any part of the tenancy.

(3.) On behalf of the defendants, it has been urged once more that the principle of res judicata does apply to the question whether the tenants are entitled to a suspension of rent. It is conceded that the fact that the Munsif who tried the earlier suit would not have been competent to try the present; suits takes these suits out of the provisions of Section 11 of the C.P.C., but it is said that the statement of the law in that section is hot exhaustive and reference is made to remarks by their Lordships of the Privy Council; in the cases of George Henry Hook V/s. Administrator General of Bengal 60 Ind. Cas. 631 : 25 C.W.N. 915 : 19 A.L.J. 366 : 40 M.L.J. 423 : 29 M.L.T. 336 : (1921) M.W.N. 313, 33 C.L.J. 405 : 3 U.P.L.R. (P.C.) 17 : 23 Bom. L.R. 648 : 14 L.W. 221 : 48 C. 499 : 48 I.A. 187 (P.C.) and Ramachandra Rao v. Ramachandra Rao 67 Ind. Cas. 408 : 26 C.W.N. 713 : 30 M.L.T. 154 : 45 M. 320 : 35 C.L.J. 545 : 16 L.W. 1 : (1922) M.W.N. 359 : 20 A.L.J. 684 : 43 M.L.J. 78 : 24 Bom. L.R. 963 : (1922) A.I.R. (P.C.) 80 : 49 I.A. 129 (P.C.). It is not necessary to examine those decisions at length or to refer to the earlier decision mentioned in the former. The extension of the doctrine to which they allude will not assist the appellants in these suits. In fact the passage in the second judgment on which reliance is placed begins, with these words "it is not competent for the Court, in the case of the same question arising between the same parties, to review a previous decision no longer open to appeal, given by another Court having jurisdiction to try the second case." I have no hesitation in holding that these two decisions do not modify in any way the effect of the decision in the case of Run Bahadur Singh V/s. Locho Koer 11 C. 301 at pp. 308, 309 : 12 I.A. 23 : 4 Sar. P.C. J. 602 : 9 Ind. Jur. 202 : 5 Ind. Dec. (N.S.) 960 (P.C.).