Skip to content


Ram Nath Vs. Sekhdar Singh - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCivil;Tenancy
CourtAllahabad
Decided On
Judge
Reported inAIR1918All210; (1918)ILR40All51; 45Ind.Cas.323
AppellantRam Nath
RespondentSekhdar Singh
Excerpt:
provincial small causes courts act (ix of 1887), schedule ii, article 8 - suit against partner for share of rent, whether suit for rent--jurisdiction of small cause court. - .....is not to blame for this. on the plaint as drafted the claim is for damages for breach of a contract. i set aside the order of the court below and direct that court to re-admit the suit on to its file of pending cases and to dispose of it according to law. costs here and hitherto will abide the.....
Judgment:

Piggott, J.

1. This was a suit for money in a Court of Small Causes. That court has refused to entertian it on the ground that it is not cognizable by that court, being a suit for rent. It presumably refers to paragraph (8) of the second schedule to the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, No. IX of 1887. If it were a suit for rent at all it would be cognizable by a Revenue Court under the provisions of the Tenancy Act, and the Revenue Court has already refused to entertain a claim for this money, though the defendant is not to blame for this. On the plaint as drafted the claim is for damages for breach of a contract. I set aside the order of the court below and direct that court to re-admit the suit on to its file of pending cases and to dispose of it according to law. Costs here and hitherto will abide the event.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //