AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
The question for our decision is whether the Small Cause Court haa jurisdiction to dispose of this case or whether it falls under Clause (g) of
Section 19 Presidency Small Cause Courts Act (Act 15 of 1882.) We agree with the learned Judges of the Small Cause Court that it does not.
The suit as framed is certainly not one for the determination of a right or interest in Immovable property but simply to recover certain stones
forming part of a well and said to have been wrongfully removed, or to recover their value. Defendant claimed title in the well, and the land in
which it was situate and it was doubtless necessary to determine this question of title in order to dispose of the suit But we do not think this affects
the character of the suit or brings it within the scope of Section 19(g) Vide the decision of a Full Bench of the Bombay High Court in Pattangowdi
v. Nilkanth Kala Deshpande I.L.R.(1913) B. 676. We have been referred to a case of this Court in Tirupadi Raju v. Vissam Raju ILR (1696)
Madras. 155. The suit was of a totally different nature and appellant relies simply on a single phrase of the judgment, in which the learned judges
speak of the suit as involving ""not incidentally but necessarily the determination of a title to land and as consequently falling under Article 11 of
Schedule II of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, which corresponds to Section 19(g). With all respect we have great difficulty in
understanding the distinction suggested : unless the disposal of a suit necessarily involves the determination of a title, it is difficult to see why the title
should be determined at all. But whatever may have been the meaning of the learned Judges, the practice and the current of decisions in Madras
have been consistent with Pattangowdi v. Nilkanth Kala Deshpande ILR (1913) B. 676 and we need only refer to three decisions of this Court in
Chintala Raghava, Reddi v. Chintala Krishna Reddi (1912) 16 I.C. 201 Verna Rangiah Chelty v. Vajravelu Mudali (1917) 40 I.C. 655 and
Venkatarama Chetty, In re (1918) 7 L.W. 610 . We consider that the Small Cause Court had jurisdiction and we dismiss this petition with costs.