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
2 paragraphs · 175 wordsRichard Garth, C.J.—In this case an objection has been taken by the respondent, that we have no jurisdiction to hear the appeal as it is for an amount under Rs. 100, and there is no question raised in it "relating to a title to land as between parties having conflicting claims thereto."
We think that this objection is a good one. We have been referred to two cases Hurry Mohun Mozoomdar v. Dwarkanath Sen 18 W.R. 42 and Shaik Dilber v. Issen Chunder Roy 21 W.R. 42 with which we entirely agree, and which appear to be directly in point. This being a case between landlord and tenant, there is no question of title as between parties having conflicting claims thereto. If the third person whose title was set up by the defendant, had intervened in the suit and claimed the rent against the plaintiffs, we might have had jurisdiction to entertain the appeal; but as it is, we think we have no such power, and that the appeal must be dismissed with costs.