Posted On by &filed under Calcutta High Court, High Court.


Calcutta High Court
Woopondra Narain Singh And Anr. vs Brojendra Coomar Bhoomick And … on 22 March, 1882
Equivalent citations: (1882) ILR 8 Cal 705
Author: Field
Bench: Field, O’Kinealy


JUDGMENT

Field, J.

1. These are appeals from orders of the Officiating District Judge of Nuddea, remanding four cases under the provisions of Section 562 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The facts are briefly these. The plaintiffs sued for rent in respect of certain land that had accreted to the tenures or holdings of the defendants. The Munsif was of opinion that these were really enhancement suits, and that the service of the notice required by Section 14 of the Rent Act was necessary. The District Judge on appeal held that notice was not necessary; and he remanded the cases to be tried on the merits. The decision of the District Judge is opposed to the view taken by a Division Bench of this Court in the case of Ramnidhee Manjee v. Parbutty Dassee I.L.R. 5 Cal. 823. In the view there taken we agree. We think that, although the Alluvion Regulation (XI of 1825) entitles a tenant to hold, as part of his jama, additional land which has accreted thereto, yet, as regards the question of rent, the case comes substantially within the grounds of enhancement contained in Clause 3 of Section 18 of the Rent Act. We must, therefore, set aside the orders of remand passed by the District Judge, and restore the Munsif ‘s decree dismissing these suits. The appellants will be entitled to their costs in all the Courts.


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

* Copy This Password *

* Type Or Paste Password Here *

76 queries in 0.334 seconds.