Ramaswami, J.

1. The question involved in this case is whether the Small Cause Court committed any error of law in refusing to return the plaint for being filed in proper Court having jurisdiction to determine the question of title.

2. The plaintiff brought the suit claiming rent of a house which he alleged the defendants had taken on monthly rent. The main ground of defence was that the plaintiff had no title and the defendants had not taken settlement of the house from him. The learned Munsif held that it was not open to the defendants to raise question of title since the doctrine of res judicata will operate. In 1946 the plaintiff had previously brought a title suit against the defendants for recovering house rent and for ejectment. In that suit the defendants appeared and filed written statement but on the date fixed for final hearing the defendants were absent and the suit was decreed ex parte. The defendants preferred an appeal which was dismissed by the District Judge. In second appeal the decree was modified by the High Court. The claim for arrear of rent was granted but the plaintiff was not granted & decree for ejectment since the notice to quit was held to be inv