Skip to content
How to use Judgment tools
  1. Click Tools to open PDF, Print, Tag, Note, Favourite, and CiteSignal.
  2. Use Brief & Ask in the toolbar for the AI Brief and case chat.
  3. Jump to sections with the pills below the help bar.

Amarendra Lal Khan Vs. Ajodhya Khan

Amarendra Lal Khan vs Ajodhya Khan

Type Court Judgment Court Kolkata Decided Aug 24, 1949
~2 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/857404

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

  • 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
  • Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
  • Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
  • Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account

Citation
Court
Kolkata
Judge
Decided On
Case Number
Civil Rule No. 59 of 1949
Subject
Property;Tenancy

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

-

Key legal issue
Property;Tenancy
Acts & sections
Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, 1887 - Schedule - Article 11; ;Transfer of Property Act

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Amarendra Lal Khan

Advocate Jajneswar Majumdar, Adv.

Respondent

Ajodhya Khan

Advocate Manindra Krishna Ghose, Adv.

Legal References

Acts
Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, 1887 - Schedule - Article 11; ;Transfer of Property Act
Reported In
AIR1951Cal302

Excerpt

- orderg.n. das, j.1. this is an application in revision on behalf of the plaintiff against a decision of mr. chakladar, learned small cause court judge, midnapore. the suit was one for recovery of rent in respect of a plot of land which is admittedly governed not by the bengal tenancy act but by the transfer of property act. the rent was claimed for the year 1350 to 1354 b. s. at the annual rate of rs. 3-15-9. in the plaint the plaintiff stated that the rent was in respect of a fraction of c. s. dag no. 536, khatian no. 523. the defendant in his written statement did not dispute the amount of rent payable but disputed the extent of the tenancy. on that the learned small cause court judge forgetting the provisions of article 11, schedule 2, provincial small cause courts act raised a point for determination as to the extent of the tenancy.2. in my opinion, the question of the extent of the tenancy was entirely outside the scope of the suit and should have been left open for adjudication between the parties in future proceedings.3. in my opinion, their rule ought to be made absolute and i order accordingly. the decision and decree of the small cause court judge will be varied and the plaintiff will have a decree for the sum claimed, the question as to the extent of the tenancy being expressly left open between the parties.4. the plaintiff is entitled to the costs of this rule, hearing fee one gold mohur.

Full Judgment

ORDER

G.N. Das, J.

1. This is an application in revision on behalf of the plaintiff against a decision of Mr. Chakladar, learned Small Cause Court Judge, Midnapore. The suit was one for recovery of rent in respect of a plot of land which is admittedly governed not by the Bengal Tenancy Act but by the Transfer of Property Act. The rent was claimed for the year 1350 to 1354 B. S. at the annual rate of Rs. 3-15-9. In the plaint the plaintiff stated that the rent was in respect of a fraction of C. S. Dag No. 536, Khatian No. 523. The defendant in his written statement did not dispute the amount of rent payable but disputed the extent of the tenancy. On that the learned Small Cause Court Judge forgetting the provisions of Article 11, Schedule 2, Provincial Small Cause Courts Act raised a point for determination as to the extent of the tenancy.

2. In my opinion, the question of the extent of the tenancy was entirely outside the scope of the suit and should have been left open for adjudication between the parties in future proceedings.

3. In my opinion, their Rule ought to be made absolute and I order accordingly. The decision and decree of the Small Cause Court Judge will be varied and the plaintiff will have a decree for the sum claimed, the question as to the extent of the tenancy being expressly left open between the parties.

4. The plaintiff is entitled to the costs of this Rule, hearing fee one gold mohur.

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial