ARUNAGIRI GOUNDAN Vs. RAMASWAMI PILLAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The subject matter of this petition is a promissory note executed by the first defendant in a suit in the Court of the District Munsif of Tindivanam numbered as O.S. 193 of 1936. The plaintiffs are the nephews of one Shanmugha Goundan in whose favour the promissory note had been assigned. Shanmugha Goundan is now dead and the plaintiffs have filed this suit as members of the joint family to which Shanmugha Goundan had belonged and who therefore continue to own the joint family property. The suit was decreed by the learned District Munsif in somewhat unusual circumstances. It was originally filed as a small cause suit in Tindivanam, its valuation being below Rs. 300 and the Judge who was then in charge of the Court having extended small cause powers. This Judge was succeeded by another Judge who was not so empowered and so the suit was transferred to the Original Side. A third District Munsif then presided over the Court and he was empowered to try all suits up to the valuation of Rs. 300 as small cause suits. This third District Munsif has clubbed together three suits and disposed of them in a single judgment. The third of these suits is the one which was numbered as O. Section 193 of 1936. The first defendant in O. Section 193 of 1986 after the decree had been given against him, appealed to the learned District Judge of South Arcot. The learned Judge set aside the decree on the ground that the plaintiffs were not entitled to sue as they had not obtained a succession certificate. This is now a revision petition by the plaintiffs against the decree of the learned District Judge dismissing their suit.

(2.) The first point taken in revision is that the learned District Judge had no jurisdiction to entertain the appeal. It is contended that when a suit is tiled as a small cause suit and is disposed of by a Judge who possessed the necessary powers to try it as a small cause suit, it must be deemed to have been disposed of as a small cause suit and therefore there can be no right of appeal. It is contended further that this legal principle must be applied even though the suit be numbered as an original suit. In support of this contention I have been referred to a decision of Stone, J., reported in Ramaswami Muthirian V/s. Arunachalam Chettiar . The facts there are almost precisely similar to those in the present case and with respect I do not see any reason why I should not follow the reasoning of the learned Judge.

(3.) By the respondent (first defendant) I have been referred to two rulings of this Court, one of Patanjali Sastri, J., in Kamalathammal V/s. Harihara Aiyar , and the other in Chockalingam V/s. Palaniappa . Both of these cases dealt with facts which can be easily distinguished. They are cases of suits which began their existence as small cause suits in the Court of a Subordinate Judge and were subsequently transferred for trial to a District Munsif. It was held in both of them that the District Munsif was not debarred from trying the suits from the mere fact that they had first been instituted as small cause suits in the Court of a Subordinate Judge. It is of course impossible for any Court to have held in the case of suits valued at more than Rs. 300 that when a District Munsif did in fact come to try them, he must be deemed to have tried them as small cause suits. These rulings therefore afford no assistance to the learned advocate for the respondent in attempting to challenge the authority of Ramaswami Muthirian V/s. Arunachalam Chettiar . The argument for the petitioners must be accepted that the learned District Judge had no jurisdiction to hear this appeal.