A C RANGASWAMY Vs. D J RENUKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS civil revision petition is directed against a decision of the small causes court in suit s. c. No. 3637 of 1988, dated 18-12-1991. The petitioner before me was the defendant to that suit and it was contended by the plaintiff that she had paid to him a sum of Rs. 5,001/- in connection with a site situated at hebbal. The petitioner was the power of attorney holder and had acted on behalf of the owner. Subsequently, the transaction did not materialise because the plaintiff was not interested in the property and revoked the agreement. She demanded the refund of the amount of Rs. 5,001/- and since it was not forthcoming, the suit was filed. The learned trial judge heard the parties and decreed the suit for the sum in question along with costs etc. It is against this Order that the present civil revision petition has been filed.

(2.) PETITIONER's learned Advocate has presented a serious challenge to the jurisdiction of the small causes court. He relies on the provisions of Section 8 of the Small Causes Courts Act whereunder suits of the character as set out in the schedule are excluded from the jurisdiction of that court. Learned Advocate draws my attention to item 10 of the schedule which deals with "a suit for the determination or enforcement of any other right or interest in movable property" and he submits that since this transaction concerns the sale or purchase of the immovable property, that the suit must be construed as one being for enforcement of a right or interest in movable property. Learned Advocate submitted that this aspect of the matter has been overlooked by the trial court and that it is very fundamental because that court could not have exercised any jurisdiction in relation to a particular dispute. Reliance was sought to be placed on a division bench decision in the case of Shivamurthi Mallayya Swami v Mahadev Umarane, wherein the division bench of this court had occasion to consider various aspects of the law relating to the jurisdiction of the small causes court and to hold that a very clear cut definite approach has to be taken in these matters and if the court has no jurisdiction, no amount of effort to stretch the law or even agreement by the parties can confer jurisdiction. In the present instance, the submission that the suit is for enforcement of any right or interest in immovable property is totally misconceived. The suit was for recovery of the money that was paid to the defendant at a stage when the property transaction had come to an end. If the amount of money came within the pecuniary jurisdiction of the small causes court, that was the only court before which the suit could have been filed. The plaintiff was not enforcing any right or interest in immovable property because the present cause of action namely the recovery of the amount paid by her has nothing to do with enforcement of a right in respect of property.

(3.) THE second submission canvassed was that a suit for the specific performance or recession of a contract is excluded from the jurisdiction of the small causes court under item 14 of the schedule. The plaintiff in this case has not sued for specific performance nor has she come to the court for recession of the contract. Her claim was a simpliciter money claim and to my mind, item 14 of the schedule will have no application to the facts of this case.