Dewilal Kukaji Sutar vs Ramotar Dwarkaprasad

Abdul Hakim Khan, J.—This revision arises out of a Small Cause suit No. 39 of 1950 which was dismissed by Small Cause Judge, Ujjain, on 26-9-1950. One Devlal brought the suit against Ramotar for arrears of rent amounting to Rs. 357/- plus interest on it. The suit was brought as an heir to the property of Jaganath who had given the house on rent to Ramotar. Defendant admitted the Tenancy of Jaganath, but pleaded that the Plaintiff was not the heir of Jaganath and that in consideration of the rent he had been supplying 1/2 seer of milk daily to Surajbai, the widow of Jaganath. The Small Cause Judge, Ujjain held that Plaintiff was not the heir of Jaganath, and, that Surajbai is the real successor of Jaganath. Aggrieved by this the Plaintiff has filed this revision.

In - K.S. Doraiswami Nadar Vs. Sivanupandia Nadar, (A) it has been held that u/s 25, Provincial Small Cause Courts Act (the section under which this revision has been filed) the High Court cannot constitute itself a Court of appeal. In - Bengal North-Western Railway Vs. Firm Manorath Bhagat-Dhian Ram and B.B. and C.I. Railway, (B) it has been held that unless there was no evidence before the Judge to support the finding or unless the finding was impossible or perverse one, it is unfair to interfere on the revision side.

What I have to decide in this case is whether the Plaintiff is the heir of Jaganath or not? This is a question of fact and finding (of?) the Court below not being perverse or obviously wrong, I see no interference by way of revision.

Revision rejected with costs.