Madho Dass vs Kunta Kuary

Macpherson, J.—This is an application in revision by the respondent against an interlocutory order of the Deputy Commissioner of Hazaribagh in an appeal preferred to him by the plaintiff in a rent suit in which on the statement of the raiyats the petitioner was impleaded as a party to the suit under the provisions of Section 177, Chota Nagpur Tenancy Act, 1908. The petitioner pleaded before the Deputy Commissioner that though the value of the suit was only Rs. 49 yet u/s 218 (1) the appeal lay not to the Deputy Commissioner but to the Judicial Commissioner of Chota Nagpur on the ground that there had been a decision by the Deputy Collector of a question relating to a title to land or to some interest in land as between parties having conflicting claims thereto. The learned Deputy Commissioner distinguished the decision of a single Judge of this Court in Janki Chowdhury and Another Vs. Sambodh Kurmi and Others, on the ground that there the matter turned on the fact that a decision of the question as to who was entitled to receive the rent for the tenancy had actually been arrived at by the Deputy Collector, so that the case cited was not analogous to the present case and following the decision of a Bench of this Court, Chapman and Atkinson, JJ. in Lachmi Narain v.Hari Dutta 50 Ind. Cas. 712 : 4 P.L.J. 163 he rejected the contention of the petitioner.

In my opinion, the decision of the Deputy Commissioner is sound. Assuming that the decision in Janki Chowdhury and Another Vs. Sambodh Kurmi and Others, is correct, a perusal of the judgment of the trial Judge shows that though he is somewhat confused in his reasoning yet he neither did nor intend to decide any question as to title to or any interest in land as between the plaintiff and the intervenor. He has actually guarded himself carefully even against any appearance of doing so. Furthermore Section 177 definitely restricts the decision of the suit wherein a certain plea is taken and a third person is accordingly made a party to the suit to the question of actual payment of the rent to such third person in good faith. No question of title to or interest in the land on which the alleged arrear of rent accrued can at all arise. Accordingly the decision to be applied is Lachmi Narain v. Hari Dutta 50 Ind. Cas. 712 : 4 P.L.J. 163 with which I respectfully agree. This rule being without merits is discharged with costs.