AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
No AI summary yet
Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.
Judgment
4 paragraphs · 210 wordsO''Kinealy and Banerjee, JJ.—These appeals were heard together, and our decision in any one of them will govern the others. They have been laid for the recovery of road cess and public works cess, and are each of small value. The question raised for our decision is whether an appeal lies to this Court.
It is not denied that if the ordinary procedure for realizing rents by suit is followed, as directed by the Acts under which cesses are levied, no appeal would lie; but it is said that because the definition of "rent" in the Rent Act also includes cesses for certain purposes, suits for cesses should not be treated as suits for rent, and that a second appeal lies.
No doubt the Act declares that in Sections 53 to 68, both inclusive, and in Sections 72 to 75, both inclusive, "rent" includes cesses, but we think that these are enabling provisions passed to extend the meaning of "rent," and it in no way interferes with the law refusing a right of appeal in suits below one hundred rupees in value, which law is made applicable to suits for cesses by Section 47 of Bengal Act IX of 1880.
The appeal will be dismissed with costs.