A preliminary objection has been taken to the hearing of this appeal, namely, that no second appeal lies, as the value of the suit is less than Rs. 100 and no question as to the amount of rent annually payable has been decided.
We think that this objection must prevail.
The Plaintiffs sued for arrears of rent at Rs. 31 per annum. The defence of the Defendant was that he was not the Plaintiffs' tenant, but that he held the land under some third person at a rent, of Rs. 25 per annum.
The lower Appellate Court has found that the Plaintiffs are the landlords, that the Defendant is their tenant, and that the rent is Rs. 31 per annum.
Now it appears to us that no question of the amount of rent payable has been decided. The Defendant did not dispute that if he was the Plaintiffs' tenant he was liable to pay at the rate of Rs. 31. He stated that the rent of the land payable by him to some one else was Rs. 25. But that was a perfectly unnecessary plea to raise in the suit; and no decision has been given on this point by the lower Appellate Court. All that the lower Appellate Court has decided is that the Defendant is the Plaintiffs' tenant at a rent of Rs. 31. As a matter of fact, there is no dispute as to the amount of rent payable. The dispute was as to whether the relation of landlord and tenant existed between the parties. That was the only issue in the case, that was the only issue which arose and the only issue decided.
There can therefore be no second appeal in this case, simply because the Defendant chose to plead, in a very unnecessary manner, that the rent of the land payable to some one else, not a party to the suit and a person found not to be the landlord, is Rs. 25.
The appeal is dismissed with costs.
S.C.S
Appeal dismissed.