Skip to content


Veerni Soorayya Vs. Veerni Mallayya and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCivil
CourtChennai High Court
Decided On
Case NumberCivil Revn. No. 1370 of 1950
Judge
Reported inAIR1953Mad164; (1952)2MLJ452
ActsProvincial Small Cause Courts Act, 1887 - Schedule - Article 41
AppellantVeerni Soorayya
RespondentVeerni Mallayya and ors.
Advocates:C. Rama Rao, Adv.
DispositionRevision allowed
Cases ReferredBhairon v. Ram Baran
Excerpt:
- - the present suit is clearly not covered by article 41 where there has been a decree already passed making the petitioner and defendants jointly liable. it was well-settled long ago that this type of suit for contribution is cognizable by a small cause court......ii of the small cause courts act. in a suit of that kind, there were several avenues for contest open which took it out of the category of a small cause suit. the present suit is clearly not covered by article 41 where there has been a decree already passed making the petitioner and defendants jointly liable. it was well-settled long ago that this type of suit for contribution is cognizable by a small cause court. see -- 'ramaswami pantulu v. narayanamurthi pantulu', 14 mlj 480 and also, if it is necessary to go outside our state, -- 'bhairon v. ram baran', 28 all 292. the view taken by the lower court is erroneous. its order is set aside. the plaint will be received and tried as expeditiously as possible as a small cause suit. 2. the petition is allowed with costs.
Judgment:

Mack, J.

1. Petitioner and defendants were made jointly and severally liable on a decree for costs amounting to Rs. 442-8-0. Petitioner paid the whole amount and filed a small cause suit to recover Rs. 86-11-0 from defendants 1, 2 and 3 and from defendants 4 to 7. The learned Small Cause Judge erroneously held that this suit was not cognizable by a Small Cause Court and returned it for presentation to the proper court. He followed a Patna decision -- 'Mt. Sarror Fatima v. Chaudhury Seikh Mohammad Safiuddin', AIR 1941 Patna 49, which is not in point. It was there held that where a suit was brought by one co-sharer, who had paid land revenue to Government to recover contribution from the other co-sharers it could not be tried by a Small Cause Court under Article 41 of Schedule II of the Small Cause Courts Act. In a suit of that kind, there were several avenues for contest open which took it out of the category of a small cause suit. The present suit is clearly not covered by Article 41 where there has been a decree already passed making the petitioner and defendants jointly liable. It was well-settled long ago that this type of suit for contribution is cognizable by a Small Cause Court. See -- 'Ramaswami Pantulu v. Narayanamurthi Pantulu', 14 MLJ 480 and also, if it is necessary to go outside our State, -- 'Bhairon v. Ram Baran', 28 All 292. The view taken by the lower court is erroneous. Its order is set aside. The plaint will be received and tried as expeditiously as possible as a small cause suit.

2. The petition is allowed with costs.


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