LAWS(MAD)-1956-12-4

RAMASWAMY MUDALIAR Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU

Decided On December 07, 1956
RAMASWAMY MUDALIAR Appellant
V/S
STATE OF TAMIL NADU Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a revision against the decree passed by the Subordinate Judge of cuddalore in S. C. S. No. 251 of 1955. The suit was for recovery of damages being the price for the purchase of property from the defendant, as he had been dispossessed by the rightful claimant, the claim being recognised by a decree of court. This is a plain and simple suit for damages and the lower court has given a decree in favour of the plaintiff. It is against this decree that this revision has been filed by the defendant

(2.) THE point, that is raised before me, is that the Small Cause Court has no jurisdiction, because under Article 11 of the 2nd schedule of the Provincial Small cause Courts Act, 9 of 1887, the Small Cause court has no jurisdiction to entertain a suit of this nature. Article 11 of the 2nd schedule is as follows:

(3.) ANOTHER point that was not taken in the trial court at all but is taken here for the first time in this court. That is the Madras Government has no jurisdiction to raise the pecuniary jurisdiction of the small cause court to a sum above Rs. 1000. as under Section 15 (3) of the Provincial Small Cause Court Act no provincial government shall enhance the pecuniary jurisdiction of the court above Rs. 1000. The Provincial Small Cause Courts Act is an Act of 1887, where as the Civil Court act of the State is one of 1873. Under Section 3 (c) nothing contained in the provincial Small Cause Courts Act should be construed to affect any local law or any special law other than the Code of Civil Procedure. Therefore, what is contained in the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act of 1887 does not affect, the power that is given to the local Government to raise the jurisdiction. As already pointed out, this point was not taken in the trial court. In the grounds in the petition also it has not been taken in this form. It is said to be covered by the general ground that the decision of the trial court is without jurisdiction. It need hardly be stated that this is an after-thought for the purpose of getting this revision petition admitted. I do not find any substance in it the civil revision petition is dismissed.