KALI KISHORE PAL Vs. GOPI MOHUN ROY CHOWDHRY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The questions raised for our decision were disposed of by us in the course of the arguments of the learned Vakil for the appellants, except the substantial one relating to the jurisdiction of the Settlement Officer and the Special Judge who decided the first appeals. We, also, overruled the preliminary objection taken on behalf of the respondents because the Settlement Officer as well as the Special Judge tried matters coming under both Section 105 and Section 106 of the Bengal Tenancy Act without discriminating them in their judgments. A second appeal may lie in a proceeding under Section 106, but there is no right of second appeal in a proceeding for settlement of rents under Section 105. If, however, such matters are not kept separate, we think, an appeal is entertainable by this Court in respect of the matters coming under Section 106.

(2.) The question of jurisdiction may be divided into two parts: (1) the jurisdiction of the Special Judge to entertain the first appeals, and (2) the jurisdiction of the Settlement Officer to settle rents and decide disputes.

(3.) The Special Judge was the District Judge of Tippera, Mr. W.B. Brown. He was duly empowered to hear appeals from the decisions of Settlement Officers in his district, whether those decisions affected lands within the district or lands outside the district. In these cases, the lands, though geographically situated in the district of Dacca, appertained to an estate recorded in the Collectorate books of Tippera and so the Settlement Officer of Tippera decided the disputes and settled rents. The learned Judge, therefore, had jurisdiction to entertain and hear the first appeals presented to him.