Mritunjoy Praharaj v. Balmakund Kanungoe

Dawson Miller, C.J:— In this case the defendant seeks leave to appeal to His Majesty in Council from a decision of this Court, dated the 8th April, 1920. The petitioner was the transferee of an occupancy holding in Orissa and was sued by the landlord claiming a registration fee payable under section 31 of the Orissa Tenancy Act. His defence to that suit was that he had not applied for registration and was therefore not bound to pay any registration fee and, secondly, that by custom appertaining to the Ekrajat Mahal of which the land in suit was a part the tenants might transfer their holdings without the consent of the landlord, and that in all such cases section 31 of the Orissa Tenancy Act had no operation. This Court decided that whether the holding was transferable without the consent of the landlord or whether the consent of the landlord was first to be obtained, in either case, section 31 was applicable and that there was a duty cast upon the transferee to apply to the landlord for registration of the transfer and to pay a fee equal to 25 per cent, of the consideration money or six times the annual rent of the holding. The decision of this Court was a decision of reversal but the amount in dispute between the parties was only a sum of some 130 or 140 rupees and therefore the case clearly is not one which comes under section 110 of the CPC. No doubt a question of law arises upon the proper interpretation of section 31 of the Orissa Tenancy Act but that in itself is not sufficient to entitle us to grant leave to appeal. The applicant however contends that the result of this decision will be to affect the whole of the tenants whose holdings are subject to the Orissa Tenancy A at and more especially the tenants of the Ekrajat Mabal which extends cover an area of some 63,000 acres and, therefore, that is a good ground for granting special leave and certifying that the case is a fit one under section 109 of the CPC.

2. If it could be shown that the decision in the present case directly affected the rights of the tenants in the Ekrajat Mahal that might in my opinion possibly be a good ground for granting a certificate but the present case only affects directly the parties to it and it is not shown that any large number of the tenants of the Ekrajat Mahal have either transferred their holdings or are contemplating a transfer of their holdings in the immediate, future, and certainly their rights are not directly affected by the present decision. It is clearly not enough to entitle us to grant special leave to appeal under section 109 that a decision upon the construction of a section of a Tenancy Act such as the Orissa Tenancy Act, or the Bengal Tenancy Act, or any other, will affect incidentally the rights of those who have holdings or tenures subject to one or other of those Acts. That is not sufficient to entitle us to grant special leave.

3. If it were so in every case where a section of one or other of those Acts has to be interpreted the decision in such case might be said to give rise to special grounds for granting leave to appeal. But this is clearly not so and although I had some hesitation during the course of the argument as to whether or not we ought to grant this application I have arrived at the conclusion that there is no substantial reason why we should do so. I think that the application should be dismissed with costs.

4. Adami, J.:— I agree.

5. Application dismissed.