AINULLA PRAMANIK; RAHIMULLA PRAMANIK Vs. NASIBULLA KHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE two Rules were issued, calling upon the opposite party to show cause why the judgment and decrees of the Court of Appeal below complained of should not be set aside on the ground that they had been passed without jurisdiction. The plaintiff brought two suits to recover rent. The amount of rent claimed in each suit did not exceed Rs. 50. The defence that the defendant raised against the plaintiff s claim was that he was not the tenant of the plaintiff but that he himself was entitled to the land by virtue of a settlement obtained from the superior landlord. The suits, therefore, clearly raised the question as to whether the plaintiff or the defendant was entitled to the land by virtue of a settlement from the superior landlord. In that case, it seems to me that the learned Additional Subordinate Judge clearly had the right to entertain an appeal from the judgment of the Munsif, the Munsif having decided that the settlement was with the defendant and not with the plaintiff. The exact point was raised and decided in the case of Sita Nath Pal v Kartick Gharmi 8 C.W.N. 434. That decision is binding on us and we must follow it in this case. The two Rules are accordingly discharged with costs, one gold mohur in each case. Richardson, J.

(2.) I agree.