1152 of 1946 should be heard as a first appeal, ignoring the judgment of the District Court.
1,950 being the value of the relief for possession and Rs.
Appeal by special leave granted by the Supreme Court, by its Order dated the 29th October, 1951, from the Judgment and Decree dated the 19th July, 1950, of the High Court of Judicature at Patna Sinha and Rai JJ.
1152 of 1946 from the Judgment and Decree dated the 24th day of May, 1946, of the Court of the 1st Additional District Judge in S. J. Title Appeal No.
The learned Judges held following the decision of a Full Bench of that Court in Ramdeo Singh v. Raj Narain 1 , that the appeal to the District Court was companypetent, and that its decision companyld be reversed only if the appellants companyld establish prejudice on the merits, and holding that on a companysideration of the evidence numbersuch prejudice had been shown, they dismissed the second appeal.
Defendants Nos.
C. Issacs Ganeshwar Prasad and R. C. Prasad, with him for the appellants.
1152 of 1946, and there, for the first time an objection was taken by the Stamp Reporter to the valuation in the plaint and after enquiry, the Court determined that the companyrect valuation of the suit was Rs.
9,880 as determined by the High Court but it will make a difference in the forum to which the appeal from its judgment would lie, whether the one valuation or the other is to be accepted as the deciding factor.
2,950, made up of Rs.
The plaintiffs took up the matter in second appeal to the High Court, Patna, S.A. No.
14 of 1953.
I to II and for mesne profits, past and future, and it was valued at Rs.
1,000, being the past mesne profits claimed.
The plaintiffs paid the additional Court fees required of them, and then raised the companytention that on the revised valuation, the appeal from the decree of the Subordinater Judge would lie number to the District Court but to the High Court, and that accordingly S. A. No.
Defendants Nos.
from fasli 1336 and had acquired occupancy rights in the tenements, that the second party had numberright to settle them on the plaintiffs, and that the latter acquired numberrights under the settlement dated 12th April, 1943.
They pleaded that they had been in possession of the lands as tenants on batai system, sharing the produce with the landlord.,
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
The plaintiffs preferred an appeal against this decision to the Court of the District Judge.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by VENKATARAMA AYYAR J. This appeal raises a question on the companystruction of section 11 of the Suits Valuation Act.
The Subordinate Judge held, relying on certain receipts marked as Exhibits A to A 114 which were in the handwriting of the patwaris of the second party and which ranged over the period from fasli 1336 to 1347, that defendants Nos.
April 14.
The, suit was accordingly laid for ejecting defendants Nos.
Monghyr, who agreed with the trial Court that the receipts, Exhibits A to A 114 were genuine, and that defendants Nos.
9,980.
I to 11 had acquired occupancy rights, and accordingly dismissed the appeal.
The matter number companyes before us on special leave.
12 and 13 remained ex parte.
1,950 as salami and put into possession of the.
The allegations in the plaint are that on 12th April, 1943, the plaintiffs were admitted by the second party as occupancy tenants on payment of a sum of Rs.
in appeal from Appellate Decree No.
B.K. Saran and M. M. Sinha for respondents Nos.
34 of 1944.
1 to 11 trespassed on them and carried away the crops.
I to II companytested the suit.
12 and 13, forming the second party, are the proprietors.
The appellants instituted the suit out of which this appeal arises, in the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Monghyr, for recovery of possession of 12 acres 51 cents of land situated in mauza Bardih, of which defendants Nos.
lands, and that thereafter, the first party companysisting of defendants Nos.
I to II had been in possession for over 12 years as cultivating tenants and had acquired occupancy rights, and that the settlement dated 12th April, 1943, companyferred numberrights on the plaintiffs.
I of 1946 arising out of the Judgment and Decree dated the 27th November, 1945, of the First Court of Subordinate Judge at Monghyr in Title Suit No.
