1928 (9) TMI 3 - HC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Jurisdiction and applicability of Section 153, Bengal Tenancy Act.
2. Res judicata and its applicability to erroneous decisions on pure questions of law.
3. Binding nature of a stipulation for interest at 75% per annum in a kabuliyat.
4. Whether the stipulation for interest constitutes a penalty under Section 74, Contract Act.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Jurisdiction and Applicability of Section 153, Bengal Tenancy Act:
The first point raised was whether a second appeal lies in this case under Section 153, Bengal Tenancy Act. The claim in the suit included arrears of rent, cess, and interest on rent, totaling Rs. 174-2-0. The tenant contended that the amount claimed did not exceed Rs. 100, thus falling within Clause (a) of Section 153, which restricts appeals in certain rent recovery suits. However, the court held that the phrase "the amount claimed in the suit" includes sums ancillary to rent, such as interest on rent in arrears or statutory damages. Therefore, the preliminary objection regarding jurisdiction failed.

2. Res Judicata and its Applicability to Erroneous Decisions on Pure Questions of Law:
The tenant argued that the previous decision on the rate of interest was erroneous and should not operate as res judicata. The court emphasized that the correctness of a decision does not affect its binding nature under res judicata. The matter directly and substantially in issue in the current suit was the same as in the previous suit, namely, the tenant's obligation to pay interest at 75% per annum. The court rejected the argument that an erroneous decision on a pure question of law does not operate as res judicata. It was held that the principle of res judicata applies regardless of whether the previous decision was right or wrong.

3. Binding Nature of a Stipulation for Interest at 75% Per Annum in a Kabuliyat:
The tenant contended that the stipulation for interest at 75% per annum in the kabuliyat was not binding. The court noted that this issue was already decided in a previous suit in 1915, where it was held that the tenant was bound by the terms of the kabuliyat. The court reaffirmed that the previous decision was conclusive and binding on the parties, and the tenant could not re-litigate the issue.

4. Whether the Stipulation for Interest Constitutes a Penalty Under Section 74, Contract Act:
The tenant argued that the stipulation for interest at 75% per annum was a penalty and should be subject to Section 74 of the Contract Act, which allows courts to award reasonable compensation instead of enforcing a penalty. The court found that this issue was also raised and decided in the previous suit, where the Munsif overruled the contention that the stipulation was a penalty. Therefore, the court held that the tenant could not succeed on this point either.

Conclusion:
The court allowed the second appeal, set aside the decision of the Additional District Judge, and restored the decision of the Munsif, which upheld the stipulation for interest at 75% per annum. The court also addressed the formulated questions, emphasizing that an erroneous decision on a pure question of law can operate as res judicata and declined to express an opinion on the correctness of the case of Anandamoyi Dasi v. Saudamini Debi as it did not arise in the present case. All judges concurred with the judgment.