Peari Mohun Mukerji vs Baroda Churn Chuckerbutti and Another

W. Comer Petheram, Kt., C.J.—The only question which has been argued before us is, whether an order made by the Munsif u/s 84 of the Bengal Tenancy Act authorizing the zemindar to acquire a certain portion of the raiyat''s holding and fixing a price at which he is to acquire it is appealable under the law.

The point has already been decided in this Court in the case of Goghun Mollah v. Rameshur Narain Mahta ILR 18 Cal. 271 and it would be sufficient for us to say that we agree with the mode in which that case was decided. But it may be as well to add that, in our opinion, it is clear that such an order as this is not a decree within the meaning of the definition in Section 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, because, reading the whole of that section, it is clear, we think, that a decree can only be in a suit, and that this proceeding is not a suit. It not being a decree within that definition, it must be an order, and it remains then only to be seen whether any appeal is given either by Section 588 of the CPC or some special provision of the Bengal Tenancy Act. No appeal is given by Section 588, nor is any given by any special provision of the Bengal Tenancy Act, and we think, therefore, that the Judge was right in deciding that no appeal lay in this case, and that this present appeal must be dismissed with costs.