1. The petitioner is defendant I who bought some lands from the plaintiff in 1947 for a sum of Rs. 2,000. The plaintiff's case was that Rs. 100 still remained unpaid by defendant 1 and he sued to recover the balance alleged to be due. This was not a straight forward claim for the money due. There was an agreement that defendant 1 should discharge alt the plaintiff's debts which, included a decree in a Munsif's Court suit. Though defendant 1 paid up the debts of the plaintiff this decree was not satisfied but was transferred in the name of defendant 2. The learned Small Cause Judge rejected the plea taken that he had no jurisdiction to try this suit, went into the merits and gave the plaintiff a decree against defendant 1 only. The decision in - 'Veerasalingam v. Sathapally Sathirasu', 19 Mad LJ 220 (A) was placed before him but he did not think that in point. That was a suit for recovery of a sum of money due to the plaintiff under a contract for the transfer of some pattahs for Rs. 60. The plaintiff sued to recover Rs. 60. It was held that the suit was for specific performance of contract between the plaintiff and the defendant and, therefore, the Small Cause Court had no jurisdiction to entertain it. The present suit is not on all fours in the sense that it is not so clearly a suit for specific performance of a contract.
2. The learned advocate for the petitioner,respondents being unrepresented and makingno appearance, invoked the support of thedecision in - 'Subramanian Chettiar v. Aruna-chalam Chettiar AIR 1943 Mad 761 (B), aFull Bench decision of our High Court whichheld that a suit by the vendor for the recoveryof the purchase consideration is a suit forspecific performance within the meaning ofChap. 2, Specific Relief Act. Though that wasnot a suit which decided any question ofjurisdiction of the Small Cause Court to entertain such a suit, it is clearly authority for theposition that generally speaking a suit by avendor to recover the purchase money or anybalance alleged to be due on a sate of immoveable property falls within the category of asuit for specific performance. The nature ofthe present suit is also such that it is not evenone to recover a specific unpaid amount butraises generally the question of how a specificcontract of sale has been performed. I amclearly of opinion that this suit is one which isnot of a small cause nature and that the decreepassed was accordingly without jurisdiction. Itis set aside. The plaint will be returned forpresentation to the proper Court for disposal.Costs of this petition will abide the result andbe provided for by the trial Court.