SRINATH PAL CHOWDHURY Vs. GIRINDRA CHANDRA PAL CHOWDHURY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an application for leave to appeal to His Majesty in Council. The amount involved in the suit itself is indeed very small. It is Rs. 230 and the question we have to determine on the present occasion is whether the decree involves directly or indirectly some claim or question to or respecting property of the value of Bs. 10,000 or upwards within the meaning of Section 596 of the Civil P. C..

(2.) The decree of this Court we might here mention reversed the decree of the Court below and, therefore, the appellant would be entitled to a certificate if he can show that he decree appealed against involves directly or indirectly some claim or question to or respecting property of the value of Rs. 10,000 or upwards. It appears that the plaintiffs or the defendant Nos. 1 to 5 as aslo defendants Nos. 6 to 10 are co-sharers in certain zemindaris. These co- sharers purchased for themselves different holdings from different tenants and the plaintiff sought to recover from defendants Nos. 1 to 5 the share of the rent payable by them to him the plaintiff as zemindar.

(3.) This Court has dismissed the suit on the ground that inasmuch as there was no contract between defendants Nos. 1 to 5 and the plaintiff for payment of any rent by one to the other there was no relationship of landlord and tenant between them and, therefore, the suit for rent could not be maintained, and that the only remedy which the plaintiff has is to recover his share of the profits of the land held by defendants Nos. 1 to 5. It appears, however, upon the affidavit produced on behalf of the petitioners, and so far as this matter is concerned it is not contradicted by the affidavit of the other side, that the defendants hold by purchase various holdings in different mouzahs including the holding in respect of which the suit for rent was brought which yield an annual rent of Rs. 800 and odd, in respect of the share of, the plaintiff, and that the defendants Nos. 6 to 13 similarly hold other holdings the annual rent payable in respect of which on account of the plaintiff's share is Rs. 500 and odd. And the contention that the plaintiff raises is that by reason of the decree that has been made by this Court, he, the plaintiff, has been deprived of his claim to annual rent to the extent of Rs. 1,400 and odd; and that if such rent be capitalised it would far exceed the sum of Rs. 10,000. It is very doubtful whether he is entitled to take into account the annual rent payable by the defendants Nos. 6 to 10. But we think he is entitled to reckon that which is payable by the defendants Nos. 1 to 5 which amounts to Rs. 800 and odd in respect of the holdings in their occupation in the zemindari owned by the plaintiff as part owners.