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
3 paragraphs · 195 wordsCunningham, J.—In this case it was urged with regard to the year 1286 (1879), for which rent at an enhanced rate was claimed, that the Courts below ought to have dismissed the plaintiffs'' claim altogether instead of giving them rent at the rate found to be the proper one. In support of this contention the rule laid down by the Privy Council in the case of Soorasoondery Dabee v. Golam Ally 15 B.L.R. 125; s.c. 19 W.R. 142 was brought to our notice; but we find that the application of that rule has been discussed in the subsequent cases of Brojonath Tewaree v. Grant 22 W.R. 13; Bhugwan Dutt Jha v. Sheo Mungul Singh 22 W.R. 256 and Bhubo Soonduree Chowdhrain v. Kasheenath Acharjee 22 W.R. 351 and that it has been held, that the rule prescribed by their Lordships in that case does not apply to cases where the suit is not simply a suit for enhancement, but a suit for rent at the old rate as regards some years and at an enhanced rate for others.
We, therefore, think that the Courts below are right.
The appeal is dismissed with costs.