Back
1955 Supreme(Mad) 334
MADRAS HIGH COURT
RAMASWAMI
Chockiah Thevar
Versus
Shanmugasundaram Chettiar
A.A.O. No. 240 of 1954
Decided On : 15 December, 1955
G. Ramanujam, for Appellant; S.V. Rama Iyengar, for Respondents.
The jurisdiction of a court depends on the nature of the claim brought before it, as determined by the allegations in the plaint, and not on the merits of the claim or the defence raised.
Headnote:
SMALL CAUSE COURT JURISDICTION - SUIT FOR RECOVERY OF ADVANCE PAID ON AGREEMENT FOR SALE - REPRESENTATIONS OF ABSOLUTE TITLE - DISCOVERY OF OTHER RIGHTS AND ENCUMBRANCES - SUIT FOR RETURN OF ADVANCE - WHETHER SMALL CAUSE SUIT - PROVINCIAL SMALL CAUSE COURTS ACT (IX OF 1887), SCH. II, ART. 35.
Fact of the Case:
Plaintiff sued defendants for recovery of advance paid to them with interest, in pursuance of an agreement for sale, alleging that defendants had made false representations of absolute title, inducing him to part with the advance, which he would not have otherwise done.
Finding of the Court:
The suit was not of a Small Cause nature, as the allegations in the plaint specifically alleged the offence of cheating under Section 415, Indian Penal Code, which fell under Article 35 of Schedule II of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act.
Issues: Whether the suit was of a Small Cause nature, considering the allegations in the plaint and the provisions of Article 35 of Schedule II of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act.
Ratio Decidendi: The jurisdiction of a court depends on the nature of the claim brought before it, as determined by the allegations in the plaint, and not on the merits of the claim or the defence raised. The nature of the defence cannot be examined for the purpose of determining jurisdiction. If the allegations in the plaint make out a case which is excepted from the jurisdiction of Small Cause Courts, it is immaterial what the defence raised is or what the actual findings arrived at by the lower court are.
Final Decision: The decree and judgment of the District Judge, which were based on the erroneous conclusion that the suit was of a Small Cause nature, were set aside, and the appeal was remanded for disposal on merits by the District Judge.
JUDGMENT :- This is an appeal preferred against the decree and judgment of the learned District Judge of Tirunelveli in A.S. No. 209 of 1953 setting aside the decree and judgment of the learned District Munsif of Tenkasi in O. S. No. 184 of 1952.
2. The facts are : The plaintiff sued the defendants for recovery of a sum of Rs. 570 paid By him as advance to the defendants with interest thereon in pursuance of the agreement for sale dated 6-12-1950, according to which the defendants agreed to sell the suit property to the plaintiff for Rs. 2250. The plaintiff agreed to purchase the property on the representations of the defendants that they had absolute title to the said property.
The plaintiff then discovered that the defendants had an other right in the suit property and there were two other encumbrances also on the said property, that these facts had deliberately been suppressed and that false representations of absolute title had been made thereby inducing the plaintiff to part with the sum of Rs. 570 and which he would not have otherwise done.
Therefore, the plaintiff asked the defendants to return the advance and on their failing to do so has filed this suit on the original side on the foot that as the defendants cheated the plaintiff and received Rs. 570 they had committed an offence punishable under S. 415, I.P.C., exempting this suit from the cognizance of the Small Cause Court under Art. 35 of Sch. II, Provincial Small Cause Courts Act.
3. The learned District Munsif accepted the contentions of the plaintiff and rejected the defence of the defendants that they did not make fraudulent representations and thereby induce the plaintiff to part with the sum of Rs. 570 and that the plaintiff being none else than the brother-in-law of Tirumalaiyandi Tevar, he knew full well all the facts showing that the defendants had no absolute title to the property and knowingly entered into this transaction.
Therefore, he decreed the suit and on appeal by the defeated defendants the learned District Judge came to the conclusion that this was not a suit for compensation contemplated under Art. 35 of Sch. II, Provincial Small Cause Courts Act and therefore this was a suit of a Small Cause nature, that the District Munsif had no jurisdiction to try the suit on the original side and purporting to follow the decision in - Oor Nayakkan v. Arunachala Chettiar, 1948 Mad 245 (AIR V 35) (A), directed the plaint to be returned for representation to the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Tirunelveli to be filed on the Small Cause side.
The plaintiff has preferred the present appeal against the said decision. I may point out here that the defendant did not raise the question of jurisdiction at any time in the trial Court and only casually mentioned in the memorandum of appeal that the lower Court had no jurisdiction to try thy suit on the Original Side as the suit was one of a Small Cause nature.
4. The principles which should guide us in determining whether a given suit is or is not of a Small Cause nature, are really well settled The jurisdiction of a Court with reference to the subject-matter of the litigation depends upon the nature of the claim brought before it. It is the nature of the claim and not the merits of the claim that is to be seen. Court should look only to original frame of suit and not the character which it ultimately assumes - Lakshmandas v. Anna, 32 Bom 356 (360) (B); - Lala Bishun v. Mangal, 24 All 457 (Note) (C) - Teddappa v. Jenkatappa, 1924 Mad 844 (AIR V 11) (D); - Motabhai v. Surat City Municipality, 20 Bom 675 (E); - Ganappa v. Hammad, 1925 Bom 440 (AIR V 12) (F).
Now, the nature of the claim can only be ascertained by examining the allegations made in the plaint. - Jagjal v. Harnarain Singh, 10 All 524 (G); - Raghubar Dayal v. Mulwa, 1927 All 288 (AIR V 14) (H) - Ganga Prasad v. Prabhu Dayal, 1935 All 141 (2) (AIR V 22) (I): - Bandhu Pandey v. Gauri Dat Pandey, 1930 All LJ 1247 (J); - Gorak v. Baldeo, 1933 All 902 (AIR V
