DAMODARAN NAIR Vs. GOPALAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) I am afraid that the learned Munsiff is in error in holding that he was bound by the finding of the Rent Court holding that the suit transaction evidenced by Ext. A 1 was a lease and not a mortgage. Under S.15 [2] of the Malabar Tenancy Act the Rent Court has only the powers of a Court of Small Causes and therefore it cannot be doubted that the Rent Court is not competent to decide questions regarding title to immovable properties. The Full Bench decision of this court in Ukkavummakutty v. Choyikutty, 1958 KLT 686 , relied on by the lower court, only lays down that, if a dispute arises before the Rent Court that the said court has no jurisdiction to fix the fair rent as there is no relationship of landlord and tenant subsisting between the parties before it, the Rent Court has then the power and the obligation to adjudicate upon and decide that question as an incidental and preliminary point to see whether it has jurisdiction to determine the fair rent in the case. Therefore, to construe the order of the Rent Court as one deciding the question of title to immovable property and thus to hold that the order is binding on the court of the Munsiff, which has the power to decide questions of title to immovable property, is wrong. Further, the present suit before the lower court is one which is not triable by the Rent Court and in that view the earlier decision of the Rent Court that