MAHARAJA BAHADUR SING Vs. FELANI MAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiff is the appellant before us. He instituted the suit against the defendants for damages for use and occupation for the years 1342 to 1344 B.S. and for rent for the year 1345 B.S. The material statement is contained in para. 2 of his plaint. In that paragraph, he states that the defendants were in occupation of his khas lands without his consent and knowledge and had no rights in that land upto the year 1344 B.S. It is on this basis that he claimed damages for use and occupation for the said three years. He further stated that in a proceeding under Section 105, Bengal Tenancy Act, rent was assessed at a certain figure from the year 1345 B.S. onwards. He therefore claimed rent at the rate settled in the proceedings under Section 105, Bengal Tenancy Act, for the year 1345 B.S. The suit was instituted in the civil Court, namely, in the Court of the first Munsif, Dinajpur. The defendants admitted their liability to pay rent for the year 1345 B.S.; but stated that the civil Court was incompetent to try the claim for use and occupation for the years 1342 to 1344 B.S.

(2.) This defence was given effect to by the Court of first instance which made a decree for rent in favour of the plaintiff for the year 1345 B.S. only. The learned District Judge on appeal confirmed the decision of the Munsif. A further appeal was taken to this Court and was heard by our learned brother Khundkar J., sitting singly. He held that the second appeal was incompetent by reason of the provisions of Section 102, Civil P.C. He, however, expressed his views on the merits also and stated without giving any reason that the decree of dismissal in respect of the claim for use and occupation for the years 1342 B.S. to 1344 B.S. was right. He gave leave to appeal under Clause 15, Letters Patent.

(3.) In the view that we are taking, it is unnecessary to express any view on the question as to whether the second appeal was incompetent or not, because we think that on the merits our learned brother Khundkar J., is right. Section 15, Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, gives jurisdiction to a Court of Small Causes to try suits of a civil nature of every description save and except suits of the nature mentioned in the different items of Schedule II, provided the value of the suits do not exceed the sum of Rs. 500. Section 16 of that Act provides that a suit which can be tried by a Court of Small Causes shall not be tried by the civil Court.