Back
Allahbad High Court
R.R.RASTOGI
Mohammed Fasi - Appellant
Versus
Abdul Qyayum - Respondent
Decided On : 05/09/1978
SMALL CAUSE COURT - JURISDICTION - SUIT FOR EJECTMENT - QUESTION OF TITLE - ESTOPPEL - SECTION 23 OF THE SMALL CAUSE COURTS ACT, 1887 - APPLICABILITY.
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiff filed a suit for ejectment of the defendant from a shop, recovery of rent, and damages. The defendant admitted in his written statement that the plaintiff was the owner of the shop and he was its tenant. However, he later added a paragraph to the written statement stating that besides the plaintiff, his other three brothers were also owners of the shop. The defendant also filed an application stating that an intricate question of title was involved in the suit and the plaint should be returned to the plaintiff for presentation to the proper court.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the defendant was estopped from denying the plaintiff's ownership of the shop as he had admitted it in earlier proceedings. The court also held that the question of title involved in the suit was not intricate and could be decided by the Small Cause Court. Therefore, the court dismissed the defendant's application.
Issues: 1. Whether the defendant was estopped from denying the plaintiff's ownership of the shop. 2. Whether the question of title involved in the suit was intricate and could be decided by the Small Cause Court.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the defendant was estopped from denying the plaintiff's ownership of the shop as he had admitted it in earlier proceedings. The court relied on the principle of estoppel to prevent the defendant from taking a contradictory position. 2. The court held that the question of title involved in the suit was not intricate and could be decided by the Small Cause Court. The court relied on the provisions of Section 23 of the Small Cause Courts Act, 1887, which gives the Small Cause Court the option to return the plaint to the plaintiff for presentation to a proper court if the question of title is intricate. However, the court held that in this case, the question of title was not intricate and could be decided by the Small Cause Court.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the defendant's revision petition and upheld the order of the lower court.
2. The trial court took note of certain circumstances which were:
(1) that in the written statement as filed originally Paras 1 and 2 of the plaint were admitted;
(2) In Miscellaneous Case No. 188 of 1970 under S. 7-C of the U. P. (Temporary) Control of Rent and Eviction Act, 1947 between the same parties the defendant who was the applicant in that case admitted the plaintiff to be the owner of the disputed shop;
(3) In reply to the notice of the plaintiff dated 7-6-1967 the defendant did not deny the ownership of the plaintiff of the disputed shop and
(4) In the municipal records the plaintiff was shown as the exclusive owner of the disputed shop.
The trial court thus held that no intricate question of title in respect of the disputed property arose in this suit for determination. Reliance was placed on a decision of this Court in Mohammad IIiyas v. Hari Ram (AIR 1926 All 344) and of the Supreme Court in Smt. Bela Das v. Samrendra Nath Bose, 1975 Ren CJ 141 : (AIR 1975 SC 398). In the result the defendant s application was rejected.
3. A revision was filed against that order before the District Judge, Varanasi. The 1st Additional District Judge, who decided the revision, has agreed with the findings given by the trial court and has confirmed its order. Now, a second revision has been filed before this court.
4. It was submitted on behalf of the applicant that the courts below erred in taking the view that the defendant-applicant was estopped from taking the plea that the plaintiff was not the exclusive owner of the disputed shop because in proceedings under S. 7-C of U. P. Act No. 3 of 1947 it was not necessary that all the owners should have been made parties. As for reply to the notice under S. 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, the defendant was under no obligation to give any such reply. It was stated that the applicant had taken the disputed shop on rent from plaintiff s father, that plaintiff s father died leaving behind four sons and all of them are owners of the disputed shop. The defendant-applicant, therefore, was quite justified in taking this plea and under S. 23 of the Small Cause Courts Act, the trial court was not competent to decide this case.
5. In my opinion the above submissions do not have much force. Sec. 23 of the Small Cause Courts Act lays down:-
" (1) Notwithstanding anything in the foregoing provisions 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 immoveable property or other title which such a Court cannot finally determine, the Court may at any state of the proceedings, return the plaint to be presented to a Court having jurisdiction to determine the title." It would appear that in order to attract the application of this sub-section it is necessary that the court in which a suit has been filed must either be a Court of Small Causes or a court invested with Small Causes powers and the suit must be of the nature of Small Causes. The purpose and intention of this provision is to enable the court of Small Causes to save its time by r
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
