Tottenham and Agnew, JJ.
1. It appears to us that this rule must be made absolute. The suit in question was not such as is cognizable by a Small Cause Court. It does not appear to come within the description given in Section 6 of Act XI of 1865 of suits cognizable by Courts of Small Causes. Baboo Bhobani Charan Butt, who appeared to show cause against therule, argued that the suit was practically for damages. The plaint did not purport to be for damages, although the plaintiff did allege that the money had been obtained from him by force. Had that been so, possibly we might have held that the suit was for damages. But even if the Small Cause Court had jurisdiction to entertain the suit under the misapprehension that it was for damages, it had no jurisdiction to grant a decree when it had ascertained on trial what the facts really were. The facts found and set out in the judgment of the Court below are quite sufficient to show that that Court had no jurisdiction to grant a decree. The Court expressly found that the money paid to the defendant by way of rent by the plaintiff was not extorted by force or duress. It found also that it was not paid to the defendant under any mistake as to his being entitled to receive it. On the contrary it found that the payment was made voluntarily; that it was made with the full knowledge that the defendant had no right to the money; and that it was probably made in order to defraud intermediate holders who were entitled to the rents. That being so, if the plaintiff in this suit was entitled to recover the money at all, he could not recover it in the Court of Small Causes.
2. The rule must be made absolute with costs.