1946  Present: Howard C. J.

HAMID, Appellant, and BADURDEEN, Respondent.

166-C. R. Matale, 7,428.

Jurisdiction-Action to recover money-Claim for interest-Part of cause of action-Court of Requests.

In an action to recover money a claim for interest is not something incidental to the cause of action but is part of the cause of action itself.
   
When the amount claimed together with interest up to the date of the plaint exceeds Rs. 300 the Court of Requests has no jurisdiction.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Commissioner of Requests, Matale.

           Cyril E. S. Perera (with him E. A. G. de Silva), for the plaintiff, appellant.

          H. W. Jayewardene, for the defendant, respondent.

Cur. adv. vult.

February 1, 1946 HOWARD C. J. -
   
The plaintiff appeals from a judgment of the Commissioner of Request, Matale, dismissing his action on the ground that the claim was not within the jurisdiction of the Court of Requests. In his plaint the plaintiff claimed an order for the return of certain articles of jewellery on payment of the sum of Rs. 231. In the alternative he claimed judgment against the defendant for the sum of Rs. 269, that is to say, the value of the said articles Rs.500 less the sum of Rs. 231. It would appear from the evidence which was accepted by the Commissioner that the plaintiff on August 16, 1939, deposited the jewellery with the defendant as security for a loan of Rs. 231. In holding that he has no jurisdiction the Commissioner relying on the judgment of Wood Renton J. in Caro v. Arolis1 held that the test of jurisdiction is the amount demanded and not the amount awarded. He has further held that the value given by the plaintiff in his plaint must always be taken to determine the forum except in cases where the plaintiff has misrepresented the value with the intention of getting a trial in a different Court from that intended by the Legislature.

The jurisdiction of the Court of Requests is formulated in section 75 of the Courts Ordinance (Cap. 6) which is worded as follows: -
   
?Every Court of Requests shall be a Court of record and shall have original jurisdiction, and shall have cognizance of and full power to hear and determine all actions in which the debt, damage or demand shall not exceed three hundred rupees, and in which the party or parties defendant shall be resident within the jurisdiction of such court, or in which the cause of action shall have arisen with in such jurisdiction, and all hypothecary action in which the amount claimed shall not exceed three hundred rupees, and the land hypothecated or any part thereof is situated within the jurisdiction of such court, and also all action in which the title to, interest in, or right to the possession of any land shall be in dispute, and all actions for the partition or sale of land, provided that the value of the land or the particular share, right, or interest in dispute or to be partitioned or sold shall not exceed three hundred rupees, and the same or any part thereof is situate within the jurisdiction of such Court :
   
Provided always that such Court shall not have cognizance of any action for criminal conversation, or for seduction, or for breach of promise of marriage, of for separation a mensa et thoro, of for a divorce a vinculo martimonii, of for declaration of nullity of marriage.?
   
The only question that arises is whether the Commissioner was right in holding that the debt, damage or demand exceeded Rs. 300. In addition to the cases cited to me by Counsel I have also considered the cases of Thaynappa Chetty v. Packier Bawa2 , Areppin Ahamat v. T. D. Martinus3, and Maclachalan v. Maitland4. In the first case the action was brought in the District Court and the amount due on the day of the libel was 10. The libel in regular form claimed further further interest till payment in full. This further claim raised the amount for which the plaintiff got