Ali Mir Beg vs Ahad Beg

J.N. Bhat, J.—This is a Plaintiff's revision petition against the order of the Judge Small Cause Court. Srinagar. dismissing the plain-tiff's suit

for Rs. 54 as arrears of rent alleged to be due from the Respondent from 3-12-1959 till 13-6-1963 for some premises situate at Mo halla Nawab

Bazar. Srinagar, on the basis of a rent deed dated 14-10-2002. The learned Judge has dismissed the suit because in a suit for partition brought by

the present Plaintiff against' the Respondent, it was held that the Plaintiff-Petitioner had no title to the property for which the rent, deed has been

executed under coercion by the non-applicant. This finding was recorded by the non-applicant. This finding was recorded by the City Munsiff in a

regular suit which was decided on 6-2-1958 an appeal against which District Judge ' Srinajgar by his order 'dated 26-4-1962.

The facts that have given rise to this revision petition are that the Defendant Respondent executed a rent deed in' favour of the Plaintiff for a

portion of a three strayed. three windowed building situate, at Nawab Bazar, Shah Mohalla, Srinagar, contracting to pay a rent of Rs 18 per year

for the premises The Defendant usually fell in arrears of rent, and suits for different periods for the rent of the premises were brought by the Plaintiff

against the Defendant which were decreed. The pre-sent suit was, as already stated, for arrears of rent from 3-12-1959 to 13-6-1963, after giving

no the claim for six months' rent.

The defence was that the property for which the rent deed had been taken from the Defendant did not belong to the Plaintiff. The property was

the subject-matter of a regular suit for partition brought by the Plaintiff against the Defendant in the court of the City Munsiff, Srinagar, who

dismissed the suit of the Plaintiff on 6-2-1958. holding that the property for which the rent deed had been executed did not belong to the Plaintiff

and further that the rent deed in (question was executed by the Defendant under coercion. This finding was upheld by the District Judge by order

dated 26-4-1962 as already indicated.

It has been argued for the Petitioner that on the basis of the rent deed the Petitioner got the following decrees for rent against, the Defendant:

Decree for Rs, 13.8 on 13th Kartik 2008. ex parte decree for Rs. 53.9 and costs on 19th Assuj 2011, Decree; for Rs. 54 on 5-9-1958; and

Decree for Rs. 54 on 6-5,-1960, These decrees were based on the finding that the Defendant had voluntarily executed the rent deed in favour of

the Plaintiff about the properly and they should be considered as res-judicata in the present proceedings. The decree of the City Munsiff Srinagar,

which was upheld by the District Judge; has no bearing on the decision of the present case: therefore the suit has been wrongly dismissed.

It is correct that a suit for rent for an amount less than Rs. 500 is ordinarily cognizable by a court of small causes, -and once a court of small

causes decides a certain matter which comes up for decision in that suit, the decision will operate as res-judicate in a subsequent suit But this

proposition of law has to be taken subject to certain expecptions for instance in a case where the title to the property is in dispute and any contract

based on that title comes into question in any subsequent litigation. It may be that a certain contract entered into between the parties may on an

adjudication before a Court of small Causes by any finding summarily given by that court not be considered as final and binding in a subsequent

litigation where the later decision in by a competent court of civil jurisdiction. Under the law questions of title to immovable property are excluded

from the jurisdiction of Courts of Small Causes. Proceedings of a Small Cause Court are in the nature of a summary proceeding and it is for this

very reason that complicated questions of title to immovable property and allied matters have been taken out of the jurisdiction of such courts. It is

the courts of ordinary civil jurisdiction which are competent to adjudicate upon such matters.

Another proposition of law that has to be kept in view is that although suits for rent are ordinarily cognizable by Courts of Small Causes, such

suits can be heard by regular civil courts also. There is no bar for a regular Civil Court to entertain a suit for rent. It is settled law that in order that a

certain decisionof a court should be competent to hjear the subsequent suit. In this case, as already indicated, the Small Causes Court is not

competent to hear a case wherein title to immovable property is a fact in issue. Therefore any finding giving by the court of small causes on this

document, namely the rent deed, would not operate as res-judicate in a later litigation between the same parties. This matter has come up for

adjudication before courts of law in a number if cases and the settled law on the point is that in such cases any decision given by a Court of Small

Causes will not open rate as res-judicate, in a subsequent litigation.

In Hayat Mohd. v. Bat Gaushala Ltd. Lysllpur, AIR 1938 Lah 811, it was laid down that in a suit for rent the Small Cause Court has no

exclusive jurisdiction to decide the question of title. Hence the decision of Small Cause Court on title in suit for rent cannot be res-judicate in the

subsequent suit for rent and for ejectment, because the prayer for ejectment takes the suit away from the jurisdiction of the Court of Small

Causes"".

In Rajlakshmi Dasi Vs. Sm. Susilabala Dasi and Others, it was laid down that the decision of a small Cause Court as to under radiate tenancy of

the Defendant in the Defendants suit was not res-judicata.

In Krishnaji v. Anusaya Bai, AIR 1939 Nag 130 Pollock J. laid down that where the previous suit between the same parties is instituted in a

Court of Small Causes and the Subsequent suit on the regular side, the decision in the previous suit does not operate as res-judicate.

In Pateshwari Parshad Singh Vs. A.S. Gilani, it was laid down that ""a plea of res-judicate on general principles can be successfully taken in

respect of judgments of courts of exclusive jurisdiction are those which have been conferred exclusive powers to decide certain matters. A court of

Small Causes cannot be regarded to be such a court as has exclusive jurisdiction to decide a particular matter If certainly has preferential

jurisdiction with regards to certain suits; otherwise a suit which is of a small cause nature is triable by a civil court of competent jurisdiction.

While considering the applicability of the principle of re-judicate the provisions relating to appeal ability must also be kept in view.

11-12. In that case the Plaintiff has filed suit for recovery of pension amounting Rs. 500 in the Court of Small Cause and on obtaining the decree,

claime operated as res-judicata in a subsequent suit for Its. 18,000 filed, in the court of, the Sub ordinate Judge/ On these facts their Lordship did

not hold that the decision of the Court of Small Causes was res-judicata and said:

Any other view would lead to strange and absurd results an it would be open then for a Plaintiff to get suits of very large amount decided by a

Court of Small Causes against which only a revision would be competent and no appeal would lie.

In Ram Kishun and Another Vs. Murlidhar Sharma, , it was held that a decree for rent does not ordinarily operate as res-judicata as to the

rate of rent payable for the period subsequent to the period covered by the decree.

Not only this, it has further been hold that even if a decree of a Court of Small Causes is upheld by the High Court, the decision of the High

Court would not operate as res-judicata in a subsequent litigation between the same parties about the same property in a court of competent civil

jurisdiction. For This proposition, AIR 1954 Trav. Co 470 and AIK 1924 Cal 487, may be perused.

Therefore the rent decrees enumerated above in the previous suits passed by the Court of Small Causes would not at all operate as res-

judicata in the present suits brought by the Plaintiff The Plaintiff's title to the properly has been the subject-matter of a specific issue in the regular

civil suit brought in the court of the City Munsiff already referred to. There was another specific issue with respect to the rent deed in question and

it has been held that this rent deed had been got executed under coercion When these two propositions decided by the City Munsiff and upheld by

the District Judge are applied to the facts of the present case, one has to come to the irresistible conclusion that the Plaintiff has no title to the

property and further the rent deed in question has been got executed under coercion. As he had no title to the property, he could not lease it out

and as the rent deed on which he bases his suit is the result of coercion, it is unenforceable in a court of law. The suit of the Plaintiff has therefore

been rightly thrown out by the Judge Small Causes Court. This revision application is therefore dismissed with costs.