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.

Juadulla and ors. Vs. Sheikh Bakshi

Juadulla and ors. vs Sheikh Bakshi

Type Court Judgment Court Kolkata Decided Nov 25, 1918
~1 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/877290

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
Subject
Miscellaneous

Case Summary

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

Bengal Landlord and Tenant Procedure Act (VII B.C. of 1869), Section 102 - Rent suit--Amount claims below Rs. 100--Appeal, second, whether lies--'District Judge,' whether includes Additional District Judge. -

Key legal issue
Miscellaneous

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Juadulla and ors.

Respondent

Sheikh Bakshi

Legal References

Cases Referred
Brojo Misser v. Ahladee Misrain
Reported In
AIR1919Cal416,49Ind.Cas.519

Excerpt

bengal landlord and tenant procedure act (vii b.c. of 1869), section 102 - rent suit--amount claims below rs. 100--appeal, second, whether lies--'district judge,' whether includes additional district judge. - beachcroft, j.1. this is an appeal in a rent suit against a decision of the learned additional district judge of sylhet. the rent law applicable in that district is act viii of 1569. the suit was dismissed by the learned judge on the ground that there was a defeat of parties.2. a preliminary objection was taken to the hearing of this appeal on the ground that under section 102 of act viii of 1869 no appeal lies, as the amount claimed does not exceed rs. 100 and us none of the other questions mentioned in that section was raised in the suit. at one time a view was taken that the word 'district judge' in the section did not include an 'additional district judge.' that question was set at rest by the decision in the case of brojo misser v. ahladee misrain 21 w.r. 320 : 13 b.l.r. 376 (f.b.), in which it was held that an 'additional district judge' does come within the meaning of the section.3. that being the state of facts, the preliminary objection must prevail and the appeal is accordingly dismissed with costs.

Full Judgment

Beachcroft, J.

1. This is an appeal in a rent suit against a decision of the learned Additional District Judge of Sylhet. The rent law applicable in that District is Act VIII of 1569. The suit was dismissed by the learned Judge on the ground that there was a defeat of parties.

2. A preliminary objection was taken to the hearing of this appeal on the ground that under Section 102 of Act VIII of 1869 no appeal lies, as the amount claimed does not exceed Rs. 100 and us none of the other questions mentioned in that section was raised in the suit. At one time a view was taken that the word 'District Judge' in the section did not include an 'Additional District Judge.' That question was set at rest by the decision in the case of Brojo Misser v. Ahladee Misrain 21 W.R. 320 : 13 B.L.R. 376 (F.B.), in which it was held that an 'Additional District Judge' does come within the meaning of the section.

3. That being the state of facts, the preliminary objection must prevail and the appeal is accordingly dismissed with costs.

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial