[FULL BENCH.]

Present: Bertram C.J., De Sampayo J., and Loos A.J.

BANDA v. MENIKA et al.

187-C. R. Kurunegala, 23,650.

Action for recovery of land-Incidental claim for damages-Jurisdiction of the Court of Requests-Courts Ordinance, s. 77.

The test of jurisdiction in a land case is the value of the land or interest in dispute irrespective of any damages or other relief claimed on the cause of action. Any claim for damages is only incidental and subsidiary, and does not affect the question of Jurisdiction of the court.

Where the action involves a mere money claim, such as an action sounding in damages only, the continuing damages are not incidental, but are part of the cause of action, and must be reckoned in determining the monetary jurisdiction of the court.

BERTRAM CJ.-" It is no doubt a singular result that it should be possible to bring in conjunction a claim to land worth Rs. 300, and a further incidental monetary claim to the same amount, but there is nothing in the section to prevent such claims from being combined. "

THE facts appear from the judgment of De Sampayo J.

Croos-Dabrera (with him Sansoni), for defendants, appellants.- The Court of requests has no jurisdiction, as the value of the land and the damages claimed amount to over Rs. 800. Under section 77 of the Courts Ordinance, No. 1 of 1889, the Court of requests has jurisdiction to hear all actions in which the debt, damage, or demand shall not exceed Rs. 300, and also actions in which the title to, interest in, or right to the possession of any land shall be in dispute, provided the value of the land or the particular share, right, or interest in dispute shall not exceed Rs. 300. The claim for damages should, therefore, be added to the value of the land in order to determine jurisdiction. The value of a suit should be ascertained by looking at the relief claimed. If a claim for damages is allowed to be made where the land is worth Rs. 300, it will be giving to the Court of requests a jurisdiction which was never contemplated by the Legislature. [De Sampayo J.-The claim for damages may be limited to Rs. 300.] But there is no reason why such a limitation should be imposed. Once damages are allowed to be claimed as being incidental to the main cause of action, there can be no limit to the amount. It is the principle that is in question. Under section 81 of Ordinance No. 11 of 1868, which was substantially the

same as section 77, it was held, in the case of Dingirihamy v. Dureya,1 that when the value of the land in dispute came up to the extreme monetary limit, of the jurisdiction of the Court of requests, no further claim could be made by way of damages. Wood Renton J. took a contrary view in Cassim v. Sanhait,2 and held that the value of the land alone is the test of jurisdiction, and incidental damages need not be taken into consideration, but in the later case of Hewavitarane v. Marikar 3 dissents from this view. In doing so he followed the judgment of the Full Court in Thaynappa Chetty v. Pakir Bawa 4 The case of Cassim v. Sanhait 2 has also been doubted in Silva- v. Salman Appu 5 and Caro v. Arolis 6 It was not the intention of the Legislature to enlarge the jurisdiction of the Court of requests by giving them authority to deal with cases where the relief claimed is over*Bs. 300. The claim for damages is independent of the claim to the land, and if by amalgamating them it is found that the relief claimed is in value over Rs. 300, the jurisdiction of the Court of requests is ousted.

Counsel also cited Mohideen v. Hapuwa 7 and Usoof v. Zainudeen.8

R. L. Pereira, for plaintiff, respondent.-It is clear from the language of section 77 that the Legislature intended to confer jurisdiction to Courts of requests in all land cases where the value of the land in dispute did not exceed Rs. 300, regardless of any claim for damages. The claim for damages is merely incidental. Section 35 of