Back
1927 Supreme(Nagpur) 205
HIGH COURT OF NAGPUR
Findlay
SHRINIWAS BALKISHANDAS MARWADI – Appellant
Versus
MUNICIPAL COMMITTEE – Respondent
Decided on : 03-10-1927
Jurisdiction of the Small Cause Court in a suit for damages for the use and occupation of land
Headnote:
Small Cause Court - Jurisdiction - Damages for use and occupation of land - The suit was not excluded from the jurisdiction of the Small Cause Court as it was not a suit for the profits derived from immovable property. The defendant-applicant had encroached on the land and the court held that there was no ground for interference.
Fact of the Case:
The Municipal Committee, Nagpur, brought a suit against the defendant-applicant for damages for the use and occupation of certain land. The Small Cause Court granted a decree in favor of the plaintiff.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the suit was not excluded from the jurisdiction of the Small Cause Court and held that the defendant-applicant had encroached on the land, thus dismissing the application and ordering the applicant to bear the non-applicant's costs.
Issues: Jurisdiction of the Small Cause Court, validity of the notice issued by the Municipal Committee
Ratio Decidendi: The suit was not excluded from the jurisdiction of the Small Cause Court as it was not a suit for the profits derived from immovable property. The notice issued by the Municipal Committee was found to be unjustified.
Final Decision: The application was dismissed and the applicant was ordered to bear the non-applicant's costs, in addition to the costs in the lower Court as already ordered.
Findlay, J C—The present suit was brought by the Municipal Committee, Nagpur, against the present defendant-applicant for damages for the use and occupation of certain land, and decree was granted by the Judge of the Small Cause Court in favour of the plaintiff.
2. The first point urged in revision on behalf of the defendant-applicant is that the suit was excluded from the jurisdiction of the Small Cause Court under Article 1, Schedule 2, Provincial Small Cause Courts Act. I am however, wholly unable to regard the present suit as one which can properly be described as a suit for the profits derived from immovable property. It is, on the contrary, a suit against a trespasser for damages for the use and occupation of land : Vira Pillai v. Rangaswami Pillai,1899 22 ILR(Mad) 149 and, Krishna Prosad Nag v. Maizuddin Biswas,1890 17 ILR(Cal) 707.
3. The only other ground pressed on revision is founded on the notice (A-1) which I have seen cause to admit on revision. It is suggested that it is unlikely that the two rooms in question would have been let out to the present applicant without also some adjoining land, but the plaintiff non applicant has filed in this Court the office copy of this notice and when this is read along with the resolution of the Municipal Committee, of which p. 2 is a copy, it is perfectly clear that either through collusion with the present applicant or through some misapprehension, the muharrir Mahebuballi issued the notice in question in terms which were entirely unjustified. I, therefore, see no ground whatever for differing from the Judge of the lower Court in holding that the defendant-applicant had encroached on the land and am unable to interfere. The application is accordingly dismissed. The applicant must bear the non-applicant's costs. Costs in the lower Court as already ordered.
