Skip to content


In Re: K. Venkatarama Chetty - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
CourtChennai
Decided On
Judge
Reported in51Ind.Cas.512
AppellantIn Re: K. Venkatarama Chetty
Excerpt:
presidency small cause courts act (xv of 1882), section 41 - ejectment from part of house, suit for--rent of portion sued for not exceeding rs. 1,000--jurisdiction of small cause court question of title, decision of--revision--high court, interference by. - .....is the reversioner to mean that he is the next reversioner.2. it is argued that though the rent payable by the defendant is only rs. 6 a month, the annual rent of the whole building of which defendant is occupying a part should be taken into consideration for deciding the jurisdiction of the small cause court under section 41 of the act. defendant having become a tenant of only one or two rooms, this suit has reference only to those rooms and it seems to me that as the rent payable by him annually is much less than rs. 1,000, the suit comes within the cognizance of the presidency small cause court.3. it is also argued that the small cause court should not have gone into any question of title but where the court goes into the question to enable it to exercise its jurisdiction, its.....
Judgment:

1. The first point taken is that the learned Judge has not found that plaintiff is the next reversioner. There is no suggestion that there are any other reversioners and I take the finding of the lower Court that plaintiff is the reversioner to mean that he is the next reversioner.

2. It is argued that though the rent payable by the defendant is only Rs. 6 a month, the annual rent of the whole building of which defendant is occupying a part should be taken into consideration for deciding the jurisdiction of the Small Cause Court under Section 41 of the Act. Defendant having become a tenant of only one or two rooms, this suit has reference only to those rooms and it seems to me that as the rent payable by him annually is much less than Rs. 1,000, the suit comes within the cognizance of the Presidency Small Cause Court.

3. It is also argued that the Small Cause Court should not have gone into any question of title but where the Court goes into the question to enable it to exercise its jurisdiction, its order cannot be set aside as being without jurisdiction.

4. There is no ground for interference under Section 115, Civil Procedure Code, nor under Section 107 of the Government of India Act.

5. The civil revision petition is dismissed.


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