Raghava Rao, J.
1. A small cause suit filed in the District Munsif's Court of Eluru was transferred by an order of this Court, to the Subordinate Judge's Court at Eluru for disposal along with two other suits. In the suit out of which this revision arises there was a decision rendered by the transferee Court, the sub-Court at Eluru, against which the defendant has filed this revision petition.
2. Mr. Ch. Sankara Sastri, the learned advocate appearing for the plaintiffs, has taken a preliminary objection to the maintainability of this revision petition on the ground that against the decision of the Subordinate Judge an appeal would lie to the District Court. So, says counsel, this revision is incompetent. In other words, learned counsel says that the decision pronounced by the Subordinate Judge must be regarded as a decision in the exercise of his original jurisdiction and not a decision in the exercise of small cause jurisdiction. It is pointed out by Mr. Sankara Sastri that in fact the sub-Court at Eluru had no small cause jurisdiction at the time that the transfer took place. So, says counsel) the jurisdiction actually exercised by the sub-Court at Eluru must be referred to its original jurisdiction and not to any small cause jurisdiction. As counsel drew my attention to Section 24, C. P.C., in connection with their arguments, it has struck me that Section 24(4) of the Code creates a real difficulty in the way of this preliminary objection raised by Mr. Sankara Sastri. (His Lordship after quoting the provision stated:) This, to my mind, puts an end to all enquiry after a transfer has taken place as to whether, after the transfer, it is the original jurisdiction of the transferee Court that must be said to have been exercised, or the small cause jurisdiction of the Court from which the transfer took place.
3. Mr. Sankara Sastri concedes that in this case he is not disputing the validity of the order of transfer made by the High Court. But he says that notwithstanding the order of transfer, the jurisdiction, actually exercised by the transferee Court is referable only to the original jurisdiction vested in the transferee Court from the inception and not to the small cause jurisdiction which can be reasonably supposed to have been transferred to it by the High Court on account of its order of transfer of the cause itself from the file of the Munsif's court to the sub-Court.
4. If a provision like the one embodied in Section 24(4), C. P.C., did not exist, the contention of Mr, Sankara Sastri might have some force. In most cases it is difficult to say, after the kind of transfer under Sub-section (1) has been made, whether the subsequent trial of the transferred suit must be referred, where the transfer has been to a Court possessed of original jurisdiction, to such original jurisdiction or to the small cause jurisdiction vested in the Court in which the suit was originally instituted as a small cause suit. It is precisely to avoid enquiries into matters of such difficulty, after the order of transfer has taken place, that the provision in Section 24(4), C.P.C., seems to my mind to have been made by the Legislature'in order to ensure that the decision of the transferee Court shall be regarded, for the purpose of procedure including a' question of appealability, as in a small cause suit which it originally was undoubtedly. The effect of Sub-section (4) in my opinion is to make the decision by the Sub-Court at Eluru in the present case a small cause decision and not an original side decision.
5. The only point which has given some room for anxious consideration on my part in this matter is the fact that when the order of transfer was made, the Sub-Court at Eluru had no small cause jurisdiction. But for the reasons that I have given, I think that if one has to apply the language of Section 24(4), C.P.C., as it stands the decision of the Sub-Court at, Eluru in the present case was a small cause decision which accordingly would be revisable under Section 25, Provincial Small Cause Courts Act and not appealable under Section 96, C.P.C.
6. The fact that the Sub-Court at Eluru had only original jurisdiction and no small cause jurisdiction at all may entail a disability for it to entertain a suit which is of a small cause nature. But where the transfer of the suit has been made by the High Court, the original disability in the Sub-Court does not in my opinion survive it, so as to make the kind of preliminary objection raised by Mr. Sankara Sastri tenable. In support of the view that I have taken there is a Bench decision of this Court reported in -- 'Sankarararna v. Padmanabha', AIR 1916 Mad 891 (A). So if authority were needed for the conclusion that I have reached, that in this case the revision petition is competent, that decision 'nrima facie' furnishes authority in that direction. Mr. Sankara Sastri has attempted to distinguish that ruling, as one single learned Judge of this Court is said by him to have distinguished it in -- 'Murugesa Mudaliar v. Vonkatakeshavalu Chetty : AIR1929Mad513 . It is unnecessary for me to deal with this point of distinction between the case in AIR 1916 Mad 891 (A) and the present case on the facts, as I am satisfied that the statement of principle contained in that decision, which is really what governs me sitting here as a single Judge, is supported by the 'prima facie' view that I have formed on the language of Section 24(4), C.P.C. It is to my mind therefore clear that the preliminary objection raised by Mr. Sankara Sastri must be overruled and 'this civil revision petition must be proceeded with on the merits.
7. Turning to the merits of the small cause revision Mr. B.V. Subramaniam, the learned advocate for the petitioner-defendant, has taken the point before me that no decree could have been passed for the rent part of the suit claim on the basis of the lease between the respondents and his client because, on aconstruction of Ex. A. 1, the lease between the respondents and the owner of the property, one Mulukutla Venkata Rarnaknshnayya, the respondents ceased to have any title to the property on the date on which they granted the lease in their turn to the present petitioner. The point in question, as learned counsel has frankly admitted before me after a verification of the pleadings and the issues, is not one which was raised by him in the Court below, I do not think, sitting in revision as I do, I can allow this point to be raised, of which there is no hint, as I have said, in the pleadings in the case or in the issues as framed by the District Munsif before the transfer of the suit to the Sub-Court at Eluru.
8. Mr. Subramaniam draws my attention to the fact that in the judgment of the Court below it has been observed that it is not necessary to go into the question of the construction of Ex. A-1 or of whether there were any rights in the respondents at the time of their alleged lease to the petitioner. In my opinion the Court below rightly observed to that effect because the point was not one which had been taken either in the pleadings or in the issues.
9. There is no other point which has been argued before me or attempted to be argued before me in this case very properly, because any other point would not be within the purview of my revisional jurisdiction under Section 25, Provincial Small Cause Courts Act. This revision petition is therefore dismissed with costs.