PARMESHWAR KHANNA Vs. BHAGWATI DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By an order dated 6th November, 1999, the learned Additional District Judge, XVIth Court. Meerut, being the Judge, Small Causes Court, had rejected the defendant's application under Order VII. Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure for return of the plaint in S.C.C. Suit No. 13 of 1995. The defendant had filed an application for review, which was also rejected by an order dated 17th November, 1999 passed in S.C.C. Suit No. 13 of 1999 by the same learned Judge. These two orders are under challenge in this revisional application under Section 25 of the Provincial Small Cause Court Act. Mr. R. N. Bhalla, learned counsel for the revisionists contends that by reason of an agreement produced in suit in terms of the pleadings pleaded in the written statement, It is abundantly clear and apparent on the face of the record that a question of title is Involved in the present suit, which is outside the scope and ambit of Section 23 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act. By reason of U. P. Amendment Act, though relationship between the landlord and tenant in respect of lease governed under the Transfer of Property Act can be taken cognizance by the Small Causes Court and the question of interest relating to immovable property confined to that extent may be cognizable by the Small Causes Court but as soon the question of ownership Independent of the tenancy and cessation of tenancy is apparent, in that event it cannot come within the purview of the Jurisdiction of the Small Ca.uses Court since it involves an interest in immovable property outside the scope and ambit of Section 23 of the Provincial Small Causes Court. According to him though question of title relating to the issues raised within the relationship of landlord and tenant can be gone into in such a suit but when the relationship of landlord and tenant ceased and a new relationship emerges. It becomes an interest in an Immovable property outside the scope and ambit of Section 23 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act. In order to substantiate his contention, he had retted on Annexure-1 to the stay application which is an agreement for sale between the parties. This document has since been produced in suit on the basis of the pleadings pleaded in the written statement and that the tenancy had ceased and he had acquired an interest in the property by reason of Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act, by reason whereof the plaintiffs are not entitled to assert any right in respect of the self same property and as such, the suit is hit by Order VII, Rule 10 of the Code so as to be returned to the appropriate court. He has also relied on various receipts evidencing part performance of the said agreement coupled with the fact that the revisionists had been continuing In possession by reason of such agreement fulfilling all the Ingredients of Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act and by reason thereof, they have an interest in immovable property outside the scope and ambit of Section 23 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act and as such it takes away the case from the Jurisdiction of the Small Causes Court. In support of his contention, Mr. Bhalla has relied on a Full Bench decision of the Calcutta High Court In the case of Piru Charon Pal and another v. Minor Sunilmoy Nemo and another, AIR 1973 Cal (FBI) as well as on a decision In the case of Wilfred Lovette v. Ganesh, AIR 1988 Bom 142.

(2.) Mr. Murli Dhar, learned counsel for the respondents appearing with Mr. Mittal on the other hand contends that the alleged agreement has not yet been proved. He further contends that the alleged receipts are also denied by the plaintiffs. He also contends that the execution of the agreement was also denied by the plaintiffs. According to him. until the agreement is proved or the ingredients of Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act is found to be present by the Court, the question of Involvement of interest in immovable property outside the purview of Section 23 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act could not be established so as to take away the jurisdiction of the Small Causes Court and bring the situation on the anvil of Order VII, Rule 10, C.P.C. According to him, the stage has not come. Though, however, on merit he sought to address the Court and pointed out that the alleged agreement and the receipts are all forged ones.

(3.) I have heard both the learned counsel at length.