LAWS(PVC)-1919-2-90

JOGESH CHANDRA ROY Vs. NIBARAN CHANDRA PODDAR

Decided On February 27, 1919
JOGESH CHANDRA ROY Appellant
V/S
NIBARAN CHANDRA PODDAR Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal by the plaintiff against the decision of the District Judge of Chittagong, dated the 22nd March 1917, affirming a decision of the Munsif of the 12th December 1915.

(2.) The plaintiff sued for rant in respect of certain premises, his allegation being that he had purchased a share in No. 3 in a revenue-paying estate. The defendants admitted holding the land and did not dispute that rent was payable by them, but they said that the rent was payable to different persons and accordingly under the provisions of Section 149 of the Bengal Tenancy Act they paid the amount of rent in Court. Thereupon a third person, who under the provisions of Section 149(3) claimed the money, brought a title suit against the present appellant. The title suit failed but the Court held that both the third party and the present appellant were each entitled to a share in the land in respect of which the plaintiff claimed rent in the rent suit. As the result of the decision of the title suit the Munsif on the same date that the title suit was decided dismissed the plaintiff s case in view of the findings in the title suit, and the District Judge upon appeal affirmed the order of the Munsif and said that in view of the decision in the title suit the plaintiff s suit was not maintainable in its present form.

(3.) On behalf of the respondent in this appeal the point is taken that no appeal lies having regard to the provisions of Section 153 of the Bengal Tenancy Act. That section provides that no appeal lies from a decree or order passed, as in this case by the District Judge, unless the decree or order has decided a question relating to title to land as between parties having conflicting claims thereto or a question of the amount of rent annually payable by a tenant. It is said on behalf of the appellant that as his rent suit was decided on the ground of the result of the title suit, a question of a title was decided by the District Judge and that, therefore, an appeal lies.