Back
1929 Supreme(SC) 22
PRIVY COUNCIL [ON APPEAL FROM THEEAST INDIES]
LORD CARSON, LORD ATKIN, AND LORD SALVESEN.
RAJA RESHEE CASE LAW - Appellant
Versus
SATIS CHANDRA PAL - Respondents
On Appeal from the High Court at Calcutta.
Decided On : March 5, 1929
Solicitors for appellant:Watkins & Hunter. Solicitor for respondents: H. S. L. Polak.
Under Section 109 of the Bengal Tenancy Act, 1885, the mere making of an application in a Revenue Court bars a subsequent civil suit on the same matter, regardless of whether the initial application was withdrawn with or without the court's permission.
Headnote:(A) Bengal Tenancy Act, 1885 - Sections 105, 106 and 109 - Bar of jurisdiction of Civil Court - Application made in Revenue Court and subsequently withdrawn - Whether a suit in Civil Court on the same subject matter is barred - Section 109 provides that a Civil Court shall not entertain any application or suit concerning any matter which is or has already been the subject of an application made, suit instituted or proceedings taken under sections 105 to 108 - The making of the application brings into play the prohibition of section 109 - Bar applies whether the application was withdrawn with or without the permission of the Court - Policy of the section is to prevent multiplication of procedures by ensuring that where an application is made in a competent Court, it shall be prosecuted in that Court and in no other.
Facts of the case:
A landowner filed applications in the Revenue Court for the settlement of rent and decision of disputes regarding the record of rights, alleging that a tenant was in possession of an area greater than that granted in the leases. Some of these applications were withdrawn, some with leave of the court and some without, and one was dismissed for default. Subsequently, the landowner filed suits in the Civil Court claiming possession of the excess area and mesne profits. The lower courts dismissed the suits, holding that they were barred by the statutory prohibition.
Findings of Court:
The court held that the language of the statutory bar admits of no other construction than that the mere making of an application in the Revenue Court precludes the jurisdiction of the Civil Court over the same matter.
Issues: Whether the withdrawal of an application made under the relevant sections of the Tenancy Act, with or without leave to bring a fresh suit, removes the bar imposed by section 109 on the jurisdiction of the Civil Court.
Ratio Decidendi: The prohibition under section 109 is triggered by the act of making the application. The statutory bar applies regardless of whether the application was subsequently withdrawn or dismissed, as the objective is to prevent the multiplication of legal proceedings.
Result: Appeals dismissed with costs.
Legal Category Hierarchy
-
land law
-
tenancy law
-
bengal tenancy act 1885
- jurisdiction and bars
-
bengal tenancy act 1885
-
tenancy law
-
practice and procedure
-
civil procedure
- withdrawal of suits
-
civil procedure
Judgement
Consolidated Appeal (No. 16 of 1928) from two decrees of the High Court (January 26, 1926) affirming two decrees of the Subordinate Judge of Midnapore.
The appellant brought two suits in the Civil Court alleging that-the record of rights of certain villages published in 1916 recorded that his tenant, the first respondent-defendant, was in possession of a greater area than that Included in two pottahs granted to him ; the plaintiff claimed possession of the excess area with mesne profits, or alternatively that the rent should be fixed. As to the tenancy in the first case, he had previously made applications to the Revenue Courts under the Bengal Tenancy Act, 1885, s. 105, for the settlement of rent of the excess area, and under s. 106 for a decision of the dispute so arising on the entry in the record. All three applications had been withdrawn, two by the express leave of the Court. With regard to the other tenancy, there had been an application under s. 105 and an application under s. 106 ; one was allowed to be withdrawn and the other was dismissed for default in payment of the Court fees.
Law Rep. 56 Ind. App. 179 ( 1928- 1929)
Raja Reshee C ase Law V. Satis Chandra Pal 40
The High Court, affirming decrees of the trial judge, dismissed the suits. The learned judges (Chatterjea A.C.J. and Page J.) held upon the authority of the Full Bench in Puma Chandra Chatterjee v. Narendra Nath Chowdhury (( 1925) I. L. R. 52 C. 894.) that having regard to the previous applications, s. 109 of the Bengal Tenancy Act, 1885, prevented the suits from being maintained, whether the applications were or were not withdrawn.
1929. Feb. 21. De Gruyther K.C. and Dube for the appellant. Sect. 109 does not apply when the previous application has been withdrawn, at any rate, if it is withdrawn with leave to bring a fresh suit. The section applies only if a decision of the Revenue Court has been given, or is in course of being given. By s. 107 the Code of Civil Procedure applies, and consequently Order xxiii., r. 1, which enables a plaintiff to withdraw his suit and empowers the Court to give him leave to bring a fresh suit. Sect. 109 of the Act of 1885 in effect merely reproduces ss. 10, 11 of the Code. The decision in Puma Chandra Chatterjee v. Narendra Nath Chowdhury (( 1925) I. L. R. 52 C. 894.) was erroneous.
Graham-Dixon, for the first respondent, was not called upon.
March 5. The judgment of their Lordships was delivered by
LORD SALVESEN. These appeals have been brought to settle a question which has been frequently discussed before Indian tribunals and has resulted in conflicting decisions. So far as India is concerned the law was finally settled by a decision of the Full Bench of the High Court of Bengal, Puma Chandra Chatterjee v. Narendra Nath Chowdhury . (( 1925) I. L. R. 52 C. 894.) In the present case the judgment followed the decision of the Full Bench, and the object of the present appeals is in effect, to bring that decision under review.
As the facts are not in controversy it is unnecessary to recapitulate the summary of these contained in the judgment appealed from. It is sufficient to say that the appellant who is the owner of a large area of ground, of which the first respondent (who alone appeared before the Board) holds a lease, and presented three applications in the Court of the Revenue Officer, one under s. 106 and two under s. 105 of the Bengal Tenancy Act, 1885. The latter were withdrawn without any express leave being granted to bring a fresh suit, while in the former such permission was granted. Thereafter, the present suits (two) were filed by the appellant in the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Midnapore, dealing admittedly with the same subject matter as was contained in the previous applications in the Court of the Revenue Officer.
The respondents pleaded that the suits were barred under s. 109 of the Bengal Tenancy Act and this plea has been sustained in all the Courts below.
Sect. 109 is in these terms "
