Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 16 (0.29 seconds)Section 109 in The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 [Entire Act]
The Karnataka Small Cause Courts Act, 1964
Rungo Lall Mundul vs Abdool Guffoor And Ors. on 27 June, 1878
and that appears to me to be a matter; of law. A closely parallel case is Rungo Lal v. Abdool Guffoor (1879) 4 Cal 314, This is described as a special appeal and I am not aware of what the precise significance of that term is in the Calcutta High Court. But it was an appeal against an appellate decree and that suit was one brought for rent of a sum below Rs. 100. An objection raised there that the appeal would not lie as no question before the lower Court was determined relating to any title to land as between parties having a conflicting claim and the only point determined was that there was no relationship of landlord and tenant existing between the parties, was overruled. It is not however with the effect of the lower appellate Court's decision in that case that we are concerned. But I note in passing that this was apparently what we should call a second appeal, and no suggestion was made that their I Lordships could not go in second appeal into the question as to whether the parties were landlord and tenant as it would be an interference with a finding of fact. That is the first point on which this case helps the present appellant's contention. But more important than that is the following. The plaintiff irolied on the fact that in 1863 he had instituted a suit for rent which had been decreed. As against this the defendants sought to set up the fact that three years afterwards, when he brought another suit for rent of the same lands against the predecessors in title of the defendants and these defendants set up by way of defence that they relinquished "the lands and then subpoenaed the plaintiff to appear as a witness at the trial which be did not do, he withdrew the. suit and it was argued that this terminated the relationship of landlord .and tenant established in the previous suit. Their Lordships held that the withdrawal of the suit amounted to no more than this: that the plaintiff gave up his claim for the particular rents for which the suit was brought and that it in no wise put an end to the relationship of landlord and tenant, which was established by the decree of 1863. In another place their Lordsdips observe: