Skip to content


Rajendra Mullick Vs. Nanda Lall Gupta - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCivil
CourtKolkata
Decided On
Judge
Reported in(1904)ILR31Cal1001
AppellantRajendra Mullick
RespondentNanda Lall Gupta
Excerpt:
small cause court reference-presidency small came court, jurisdiction of--title suit--presidency small cause courts act (xv of 1882) section 69. - .....in the bud as they have been or ought to be tried out. apparently if the question of title was the sole question in the case, then both the judges agree that the jurisdiction of the small cause court would be ousted: and in this view we concur. but it has been found that that was not the sole object of these suits. if that is so, although the question of title may be a principal one, if it be not the sole one, i do not think the jurisdiction is ousted. one must bear in mind that it is an easy thing for a defendant to set up a question of title, with a view to ousting the jurisdiction and driving the plaintiff to another tribunal. in the circumstances of the case before us the question referred must be answered in the negative. the costs of this reference will, after taxation in the usual.....
Judgment:

Francis W. Maclean, C.J.

1. The question submitted to us is this: 'Is the jurisdiction of this Court,' that is the Small Cause Court, 'ousted by the defendant's raising a question of tide in a suit which, according to the case as stated in the plaint, this Court has jurisdiction to try, the question of title being the principal contested matter in the suit.' It is quite clear that, looking at the plaints, the Court had jurisdiction to try these two suits. It is established by authority that the Court has jurisdiction to try questions of title, which arise incidentally in the suit. It was also apparently the view of Mr. Ormond, and this is in favour of Mr. Garth's client that, if the question of title is the sole contested matter in the suit, then the jurisdiction of the Small Cause Court is ousted. But in this case Mr. Panioty says: 'In these cases,' that is the cases under discussion, 'I am unable to say that the sole object of the plaintiff in bringing these suits was to have the title litigated, nor am I able to say whether the defence raised was or was not bond fide.' The question is whether these suits ought to be nipped in the bud as they have been or ought to be tried out. Apparently if the question of title was the sole question in the case, then both the Judges agree that the jurisdiction of the Small Cause Court would be ousted: and in this view we concur. But it has been found that that was not the sole object of these suits. If that is so, although the question of title may be a principal one, if it be not the sole one, I do not think the jurisdiction is ousted. One must bear in mind that it is an easy thing for a defendant to set up a question of title, with a view to Ousting the jurisdiction and driving the plaintiff to another tribunal. In the circumstances of the case before us the question referred must be answered in the negative. The costs of this reference will, after taxation in the usual manner, be costs in the cause.

Sale, J.

2. I agree.

Bodilly, J.

3. I also agree.


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