( 1 ) THESE three civil revision petitions arise out of the judgments in Small cause Suit Nos. 28,29 and 30 of 1998 on the file of Senior Civil Judge, Razole.

( 2 ) IN all these civil revision petitions, the unsuccessful plaintiff-Pasarlapudi choultry - represented by its Executive officer is the revision petitioner and different tenants under the Institution figure as respondents in all these civil revision petitions. The suits are filed for recovery of arrears of rent from the respective respondents-defendants in these suits on the ground that they are cultivating tenants and they are liable to pay the rents. The respective defendants had filed the written statements denying the averments in the respective plaints and also denying the title of the plaintiff-choultry and claiming title by adverse possession as well. In ail these matters, on the strength of the respective pleadings of the parties, the following points were framed for consideration:"1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for recovery of rents as claimed? 2. To what relief?"

( 3 ) THE Executive Officer and Junior assistant of the plaintiff-choultry were examined as PWs. 1 and 2 respectively, and the respective tenants were examined as DW1 in all these matters and the documentary evidence of Exs. Al to AS and exs. B1 to B3 was adduced by the respective parties. The Court below after discussing the points for consideration, had ultimately dismissed the suits and the plaintiff- institution aggrieved by the said judgments made in S. C. Nos. 28, 29 and 30 of 1998 had filed these civil revision petitions.

( 4 ) SRI Metta Chandrasekhar Rao, the learned Counsel for the revision petitioner plaintiff, had contended that in the light of the settlement deed-Ex. A5, dated 9-7-1909, the question of title is not a dispute at all. The learned Counsel also had contended that Section 23 of the Provincial Small Cause courts Act, 1887 (for short called as the act hereinafter) has no application to the facts of the case since there is no question of returning the plaints, though, in these suits, the question of title is involved. It was also contended that the mere denial of title in the pleading for denial sake is not sufficient and the defendant denying the title in a small cause suit also should prima facie place some material to substantiate his contention. In all these matters, except the pleas raised by the respective respondents- defendants in all these suits, absolutely there is no material and hence, the Court below had totally erred in placing the reliance on the decisions in Addanki Rupulayya v. Imella Annaji Rao, 1984 (1) An. WR 226, jagannath Prasad v. District Judge, allahabad, AIR 1987 All. 317 and Braham singh v, IV Additional District Judge, meerut, AIR 1988 All. 301, in this regard. Learned Counsel also had contended that the evidence of PWs. 1 and 2 is clear and categorical relating to the relationship of landlord and cultivating tenants and hence, the Court below had totally erred in dismissing the suits.

( 5 ) HEARD the learned Counsel for the petitioner in these matters at length and perused the material available on record in all the civil revision petitions.

( 6 ) THE suits are filed by the revision petitioner-plaintiff institution for recovery of arrears of rent from the cultivating tenants relating to the agricultural lands. Section 23 of the Act dealing with return of plaints in suits involving questions of title reads as follows:"23. Return of plaints in suits involving questions of title :- (1) Notwithstanding anything in the foregoing portion of this act, when the right of a plaintiff and the relief claimed by him in a Court of Small causes depend upon the proof or disproof of a title to immovable property or other title which such a Court cannot finally determine, the Court may at any stage of the proceeding return the plaint to be presented to a Court having jurisdiction to determine the title. (2) When a Court returns a plaint under