PANDIT BIKRAM RAJ Vs. PALAK NONIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These are two appeals by the landlord-plaintiffs who instituted two suits for recovery of rents against defend, ant 1 on the ground that he was their tenant. The defence in the action was that no relationship of landlord and tenant existed for the period in suit, i.e. 1337 to 1340 F., on the allegation that the rent claimed lands were in possession of one Thakuri Bhagat who was the tenant of the plaintiffs. This Thakuri Bhagat was allowed to contest the suit as an intervenor, and baying been joined in the action he put forward the same defenoe. The lower Appellate Court has reversed the decision of the trial Court and has held that the rent claimed lands in both suits are in possession of the intervenor and that they are not in possession of defend, ants 1 party and that they were never settled with those defendants. From this decision two appeals have been preferred to this Court, namely S.A. 182 and S.A. 205.

(2.) At one time I felt a difficulty as to whether any appeal lay to the District Judge in respect of the suit which is covered by S.A. No. 182 of 1935 because the amount of rent claimed in that suit was below Rs. 50.

(3.) But I am satisfied on a consideration of the decision of the Calcutta High Court in Bipin Chandra Majumdar V/s. Raj Kumar Singha that in circumstances like the present where there is a conflict of interest or, to use more accurately the words of the Code, "where there is a question relating to title to land or some interest in land as between parties having conflicting claims thereto," an appeal does lie to the District Judge as well as a second appeal to this Court. Mr. Mitra for the appellants relied upon the decision in Gangadhar Karmakar V/s. Shekhar Basini Dasya A.I.R.1916. Cal 653 in support of his submission that an appeal and a second appeal are both barred under the circumstances of the present case.