1. This is a revision against the decree passed by the Subordinate Judge of Cuddalore in S. C. S. No. 251 of 1955. The suit was for recovery of damages being the price for the purchase of property from the defendant, as he had been dispossessed by the rightful claimant, the claim being recognised by a decree of court. This is a plain and simple suit for damages and the lower court has given a decree in favour of the plaintiff. It is against this decree that this revision has been filed by the defendant
2. The point, that is raised before me, is that the Small Cause Court has no jurisdiction, because under Article 11 of the 2nd schedule of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, 9 of 1887, the Small Cause court has no jurisdiction to entertain a suit of this nature. Article 11 of the 2nd schedule is as follows:
'A suit for the determination or enforcementof any other right to or, interest in immoveableproperty.'
In plain language the suit must be one to determine the right or to enforce the right or interest in any immoveable property. In this suit there is no prayer to determine the right or enforce the right, or interest in any immoveahle property. The right has been enforced and determined in the previous suit as a result of which this suit has been filed for damages. This does not therefore involve the determination or enforcement of any other right to or interest in immoveable property. In support of his contention the learned counsel, whs appears for the petitioner, relies on the decision in Tirupaliraju v. Vissam Raju, ILR 20 Mad 155 (A). That is a suit where the land was compulsorily acquired under the Land Acquisition Act for the purpose at the East Coast railway and the compensation was fixed at a certain amount. A conflict arose as to the right to receive the compensation, and the District court having declined to determine it under the Land Acquisition Act, Section 15, an inter-pleader suit was instituted on behalf of the Secretary of State in the Court of the District Munsif. A Bench of this court consisting of Subramania Aiyar and Davies JJ. held that the inter-pleader suit was not within the jurisdiction of a Provincial Small cause court. In my opinion this decision has no bearing on this case. The other decision that is relied upon by the learned counsel is Ayub Haji v. Jainuddin : AIR1926Bom362 . There the suit was for compensation for cutting the trees. It was a suit filed under Article 35 of the second schedule to the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act 9 of 1887. Article 35 of the Second Schedule is as follows:
'A suit for compensation (a) for loss occasioned by the death of a person caused by actionable wrong, (b) for wrongful arrest, restraint or confinement, (c) for malicious prosecution, (d) for libel, (e) for slander, (f) for adultery or seduction, (g) for breach of contract of beirothel or promise of marriage, (h) for inducing a person to break a contract made with the plaintiff, (i) for obstruction' of an easement or diversion of a water course......' I do not see how the compensation for cutting trees could ever fall under Article 35 of the second schedule and how that case has any bearing on this case. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the small cause court has no jurisdiction to entertain the suit under Article 11 or Article 35 of the second schedule of the Act fails.
3. Another point that was not taken in thetrial court at all but is taken here for the first timein this court. That is the Madras Government hasno jurisdiction to raise the pecuniary jurisdictionof the small cause court to a sum above Rs. 1000.as under Section 15(3) of the Provincial Small CauseCourt Act no provincial Government shall enhancethe pecuniary jurisdiction of the court aboveRs. 1000. The Provincial Small Cause Courts Act isan Act of 1887, where as the Civil Court Act of theState is one of 1873. Under Section 3(c) nothing contained in the Provincial Small Cause Courts Actshould be construed to affect any local law or anyspecial law other than the Code of Civil Procedure.Therefore, what is contained in the Provincial SmallCause Courts Act of 1887 does not affect, the powerthat is given to the local Government to raise thejurisdiction. As already pointed out, this point wasnot taken in the trial court. In the grounds in thepetition also it has not been taken in this form.It is said to be covered by the general groundthat the decision of the trial court is without jurisdiction. It need hardly be stated that this is anafter-thought for the purpose of getting this revision petition admitted. I do not find any substancein it the civil revision petition is dismissed.