Skip to content


Tirupati Raju Vs. Vissam Raju and anr. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCivil
CourtChennai
Decided On
Judge
Reported in(1897)ILR20Mad155
AppellantTirupati Raju
RespondentVissam Raju and anr.
Excerpt:
civil procedure code - act xiv of 1882, section 470--inter-pleader suit--act ix of 1889--provincial small cause courts act, schedule ii, article, 11 and 14--claim for compensation awarded under land acquisition act. - .....the next question is whether the suit should have been brought in a small cause court, assuming that there was one having jurisdiction up to rs. 500, which appears not to have been the case. having regard to article 14 of the second schedule of the provincial small cause courts act, which excludes suits for the recovery of compensation paid under the land acquisition act from the small cause jurisdiction, we think the present, which is a substantially similar suit, did not lie in the small cause court, as it involved, not incidentally but necessarily, the determination of a title to land, and would consequently fall under article 11. in this view, a second appeal lay, and a petition for revision is not admissible. it is accordingly dismissed with costs.
Judgment:

1. The Collector having done all that he could do under the Land Acquisition Act was not, in our opinion, precluded from bringing this suit in an ordinary Civil Court, there being no prohibition by any enactment against his doing so. The next question is whether the suit should have been brought in a Small Cause Court, assuming that there was one having jurisdiction up to Rs. 500, which appears not to have been the case. Having regard to Article 14 of the second schedule of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, which excludes suits for the recovery of compensation paid under the Land Acquisition Act from the small cause jurisdiction, we think the present, which is a substantially similar suit, did not lie in the Small Cause Court, as it involved, not incidentally but necessarily, the determination of a title to land, and would consequently fall under Article 11. In this view, a second appeal lay, and a petition for revision is not admissible. It is accordingly dismissed with costs.


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