Sankararama Iyer vs R. Padmanabha Iyer

Sundara Ayyar, J.—The question for decision in this Civil Revision Petition is whether an appeal lay to the District Court of Tinnevelly from

the judgment of the Additional District Munsif of Tinnevelly in Original Suit No. 132 of 1907. The Subordinate Judge to whom the appeal was

transferred for disposal states that the suit was originally instituted in the Subordinate Judge''s Court of Tuticorin as Small Causa Suit No. 1484 of

1906; from that Court it was transferred to the District Munsif''s Court of Srivaikuntam. The order of transfer contained a direction that the suit

should be tried as an original suit along with another suit. It was again transferred from the latter Court to the Additional District Munsif''s Court of

Tinnevelly. The Additional District Munsif dismissed the suit and the plaintiff preferred an appeal to the District Court. A preliminary objection was

taken before the Subordinate Judge that the appeal did not lie as the decision of the Additional District Munsif must be taken to have been that of a

Small Cause Court. The Subordinate Judge overruled this objection. Now Section 24, Clause (4) of the Civil Procedure Code, lays down: ""The

Court trying any suit transferred or withdrawn under this section from a Court of Small Causes shall, for the purposes of such suit, be deemed to

be a Court of Small Causes."" The first clause of the section authorises the District Court to transfer the suit to any Court subordinate to it and

competent to try or dispose of the same. That the District Munsif''s Court of Srivaikuntam and the Additional District Munsif''s Court of Tinnevelly

were both Courts competent to dispose of the suit cannot be doubted. The argument for the appellant is that by virtue of Clause 4 of the section

the decision of the Tinnevelly Additional Munsif was decision of a Court of Small Causes and consequently u/s 27 of the Small Cause Courts Act

no appeal lay from his decision. It is first argued for the respondent that the transfer to the Tinnevelly Additional District Munsif''s Court was from

the Srivaikuntam Court and that Court was not a Court of Small Causes within the meaning of Section 24 of the CPC and that the Tinnevelly

Munsif could not therefore be said to have tried a suit transferred from a Court of Small Causes. It is no doubt the fact that the Srivaikuntam

Munsif had not been invested with jurisdiction to try small cause suits of the value of this suit. But there are two answers to the respondent''s

argument. One is that under Clause 4 of Section 24 of the CPC the Srivaikuntam Court was a Small Cause Court with respect to this suit when it

was transferred to it from the Subordinate Judge''s Court of Tuticorin. The argument that it would become a Small Cause Court only at and for the

purpose of the trial cannot be upheld. If this contention be sound in what capacity could the Srivaikuntam Court pass orders in the suit before the

trial? It cannot be said that it could do so except as the Court trying the suit. The other answer is that the clause does not say that the transfer

should be immediately from a Court of Small Causes, and the suit while pending in the Additional District Munsif''s Court of Tinnevelly may be said

to have been one transferred from the Subordinate Judge''s Court of Tuticorin. The construction contended for by the respondent would be hardly

in accordance with the object of Clause 4 which is to provide for the trial as a Small Cause Court of suits which are transferred from Courts of

Small Causes. All this is of course on the assumption that the Subordinate Court of Tinnevelly which was invested with the powers of a Small

Cause Court was a Court of Small Causes within the meaning of Section 24 of the Civil Procedure Code. The most important contention of the

respondent is that the Subordinate Judge''s Court of Tinnevelly cannot be regarded as a Court of Small Causes. It is of course not disputed that

Court was not a Small Cause Court constituted under the provisions of Act IX of 1887 by the authority competent to constitute Small Cause

Courts under that Act. It was invested with small cause jurisdiction by the Government of Madras u/s 28 of the Madras Civil Court''s Act. The

respondent argues that Clause 4 directs to be deemed as Courts of Small Causes only Courts trying suits transferred from what ace strictly Small

Cause Courts and not from Courts invested with small cause jurisdiction. The point for decision is, can the Subordinate Judge''s Court of Tuticorin

be regarded as a Small Cause Court within the meaning of Section 24 of the Civil Procedure Code? Mr. Srinivasa Ayyar who has argued the case

ably and very fully for the respondent has drawn our attention to Section 7 of the CPC and to Order L where the code speaks specifically of

Courts invested with small cause jurisdiction along with Small Cause Courts and he argues that therefore Section 24 when it speaks of Small

Cause Courts cannot be taken to include Courts invested with small cause jurisdiction but not constituted as Small Causa Courts. Now there can

be no doubt that one object of providing in Section 24, Clause 4, that a Court trying a suit transferred from a Small Cause Court shall be deemed

a Small Cause Court is be make the decision of the Court final in the same manner as the decision of the Court from which the suit was transferred

would be. The finality of the decisions of a Small Cause Court is enacted by Section 27 of the Provincial Small Cause Court''s Act. Section 24 of

the CPC must clearly be read with the provisions of the Provincial Small Cause Court''s Act. Now turning to the latter Act, Section 32 extends to

Courts invested with small cause jurisdiction various provisions applicable to Small Cause Courts, viz., the classes of suits over which jurisdiction is

to be exercised, the exclusion of the jurisdiction of other Courts in those suits, the practice and procedure applicable to Small Cause Court9, and

the finality of the decrees and orders passed by those Courts, etc. Section 35 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act like Section 7 of the CPC

refers to cases where a Court of Small Causes or a Court invested with the jurisdiction of a Court of Small Causes, has from any cause ceased to

have jurisdiction with respect to a case, and it makes provision as to which Court is to have jurisdiction in such cases. If the matter has stood here,

there would be very much force in the respondent''s objection that the mere investiture of a Court with Small Cause powers would not make it a

Small Cause Court. But Section 33 provides that ""a Court invested with the jurisdiction of a Court of Small Causes, with respect to the exercise of

that jurisdiction, and the same Court, with respect to the exercise of its jurisdiction in suits of a civil nature which are not cognizable by a Court of

Small Causes, shall, for the purposes of this Act, and the Code of Civil Procedure, be deemed to be different Courts."" It is difficult to give a

proper meaning to this section except by interpreting it as laying down that a Court, invested with small cause jurisdiction becomes for the purpose

of its cognisance of suits which it is competent to try as small cause suits, a Small Cause Court. This is clear from the expression ""for the purposes

of this Act and the Code of Civil Procedure."" What can be the meaning of saying that a Court invested with small cause jurisdiction is different

from itself trying regular suits for the purposes of the Small Cause Courts Act except that it is to be regarded as a Small Cause Court? The CPC

makes certain sections of the Code not applicable to Small Cause Courts. The reference to the CPC is evidently to make the excepted sections of

the CPC inapplicable to Courts invested with small cause jurisdiction. The respondent''s vakil was invited to mention any object that this section

could have in view if it wa3 not to make Courts invested with small cause jurisdiction Small Cause Courts. He was not able to make any

suggestion that we could accept. It is true that Section 32 would, strictly speaking, be unnecessary on this interpretation of Section 33 and that the

reference to Courts invested with small cause jurisdiction in Section 35 might also be said to be unnecessary. But apparently the Legislature

considered it better to mention specifically Courts invested with small cause jurisdiction in Section 35 and to provide expressly in Section 32 for

the rules of procedure and finality of decisions and the other provisions of that section applying to Courtis invested with small cause jurisdiction. At

any rate it seems to me impossible to give due effect to Section 33 unless it is regarded as making Courts invested will small cause jurisdiction

Small Cause Courts. On this construction of Section 33 there can be no doubt that the Subordinate Judge''s Court of Tuticorin in exercising small

cause jurisdiction must be regarded as a Small Cause Court. So far as the reason for the rule laid down in Section 24 is concerned, there is no

ground for distinction between a transfer from a Court of Small Causes and a Court invested with"" small cause jurisdiction. The decisions of both

classes of Courts are final. The object of Clause 4 of Section 24 is to give finality also to the decision of the Court to which the suit is transferred.

Section 24 admittedly has the effect of giving the finality of a Small Cause Court judgment to decisions of Courts not constituted Small Cause

Courts. If this could be done with respect to suits transferred from Small Cause Courts it is difficult to see why it should not be done also with

respect to those transferred from Courts invested with small cause powers. It may be as pointed out in Dulal Chandra Deb v. Ram Narain Deb(x),

a grave thing to take away the right of appeal where the Legislature has not considered the desirability of investing any particular Court with small

cause jurisdiction but the gravity applies equally to cases where the transfer is from Small Cause Courts. Rightly or wrongly the Legislature has

thought it proper to give finality to the decisions not only of Small Cause Courts and Courts invested with small cause jurisdiction but to the

decisions of a third class of Courts, viz., of Courts to which a suit of small cause nature is transferred in certain cases. The exact scope of such

cases is immaterial in considering the gravity of what is done by the Legislature. Dulal Chandra Deb v. Ram Narain Deb (1904) 31 Calc. 1057 no

doubt contains a strong dictum in respondent''s favour. The exact point in the case was whether when a Munsif having small cause jurisdiction was

succeeded by one having no jurisdiction an appeal would lie from the decision of the latter who tried the suit on the regular side. There can be no

doubt that Section 24 would have no application to such a case and an appeal would lie. Ramchandra v. Ganesh ILR (1899) 23 Bom. 382 is

undoubtedly in respondent''s favour. But although Sections 32 and 35 are commented on in that judgment no reference is made to Section 33. It

may be observed that Dulal Chandra Deb v. Ram Narain Dab (1904) 31 Calc 1057 also makes no reference to that section. Mangal Sen v. Rup

Chand (1891) 13 All 324 which followed an earlier Allahabad decision is on the other hand in appellant''s favour. These are really the only

decisions in point. In Bhagvan Dayalji v. Balu ILR (1884) 8 Bom. 230, West, J., observed that a Court exercising small cause jurisdiction by

special investiture of powers and the same Court exercising its ordinary original jurisdiction may be regarded as two different Courts. Akshay

Kumar Shaha v. Hira Ram Dosad (1908) 35 Calc. 677 cited for the appellant is not really in point as the learned Judges there decided the case on

a consideration of Section 32 of the Act only. The view adopted by the Allahabad Court appears to be the right one. Another question arises for

decision in consequence of the order of the District Court transferring the suit from the Subordinate Judge''s Court of Tuticorin to the Srivaikuntam

Court directing the latter Court to try it as an original suit. Having regard to Section 24 of the CPC it had apparently no power to do so. It was

suggested during the arguments that the order of transfer should therefore be regarded as wholly void. But this does not appear to be the correct

view to be taken. The District Judge in making the direction must be taken to have acted in excess of his jurisdiction. He had power to transfer the

suit; but he had no jurisdiction in doing so to order that the suit should be tried on the regular side contrary to the provision in Section 24 of the

CPC that the Court trying a suit transferred from the Small Cause Court shall be deemed to be a Small Cause Court. The direction to try it as a

regular suit must be regarded as invalid but it does not affect the order of transfer itself. See Bailey on Jurisdiction, volume I, Section 29. The

decision of the Additional Munsif was therefore that of a Small Cause Court u/s 24 of the CPC and no appeal lay to the Subordinate Judge''s

Court. The decree of the Subordinate Judge therefore must be reversed and that of the Additional District Munsif restored with costs here and in

the Appellate Court.

Sadasiva Ayyar, J.

Mr. Srinivasa Ayyar who argued the respondent''s case with great learning, acuteness and fairness has brought forward all the available

arguments and the two propositions enunciated by him are (a) that a Court trying a suit transferred not from a Court of Small Causes in the

technical sense but from a Subordinate Judge''s Court merely invested with small cause powers is not itself a Small Causa Court whose decision is

not subject to appeal, (b) that even if the District Munsif a Court of Srivaikuntam to which the suit was transferred be a. Small Cause Court, the

Tinnevelly Additional District Munsif''s Court, to which there was a further transfer and which actually tried the suit was not a Court of Small

Causes. I am clear after hearing the whole matter elaborately discussed that the Legislature intented to take care that a suit originally and properly

instituted as a small cause suit should not lose that nature even if it be tried by another Court afterwards by reason of transfer proceedings. When

Section 33 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act says that a Court invested with small cause jurisdiction shall be a different Court from itself

when it is exercising its ordinary civil jurisdiction it could only mean that such Court shall be deemed to be a Small Cause Court different from an

ordinary Civil Court. The observations in Dulal Chandra Deb v. Ram Narain Deb (1904) 31 Calc. 1057 and Ramchandra v. Ganesh ILR (1899)

23 Bom. 382 ignore this Section 33 and the effect of these decisions is rather to criticise the policy of the Legislature found in Section 24, Clause

4: of the Civil Procedure Code, than to follow its plain provisions as is done in Mangal Sen v. Rup Chand 13 All., 324. As regards the argument

that the trying Court did not get its jurisdiction by an immediate transfer from the Court in which the suit was originally instituted as a small cause

suit, Section 24, Clause 4, does not say that the Court trying any suit transferred or withdrawn from a Court of Small Causes and which shall be

deemed therefore to be a Small Cause Court should also be a Court to which the transfer had been made immediately from the Small Cause Court

in which the suit was originally instituted. This contention therefore also fails. The appeal was therefore heard by the Subordinate Judge without

jurisdiction and his decree must be reversed and'' that of the Additional District Munsif restored with costs.