Skip to content


Peary Mohn Ghosaul Vs. Harran Chunder Gangooly - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCivil
CourtKolkata
Decided On
Judge
Reported in(1885)ILR11Cal261
AppellantPeary Mohn Ghosaul
RespondentHarran Chunder Gangooly
Excerpt:
jurisdiction - act xv of 1882, sections 18, 19, 38 and 45--trespass to immoveable property, jurisdiction of small cause court as to--revision--act xiv of 1882, section 622. - .....away is by section 19, but this is not a suit for recovery of immoveable property, nor a suit for determination of any other right to, or interest in, immoveable property. no question of title is raised or determined.2. i think the rule must be discharged with costs.
Judgment:

Wilson, J.

1. This was a rule granted under Section 622 of the Code of Civil Procedure to show cause why a decision of the Calcutta Court of Small Causes should not be set aside. The only ground on which it is contended that it should be set aside is the ground of want of jurisdiction. The proceedings show that the suit was a mere suit for trespass, based on the plaintiff's possession. The defence was a denial of possession; no question of title was raised, and I am asked to hold that the Small Cause Court has no jurisdiction. No doubt before the present Act the Court had this jurisdiction; but I cannot think that jurisdiction is taken away by the new Act; all that is taken away is by Section 19, but this is not a suit for recovery of immoveable property, nor a suit for determination of any other right to, or interest in, immoveable property. No question of title is raised or determined.

2. I think the rule must be discharged with costs.


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