SMALL CAUSES COURTS ACT, 1887
(IX OF 1887)
Section — 15
S.C.C.Suit — Court has no jurisdiction
to go into the question of title except incidentally or to set aside the decree
of a civil Court
filed S.C.C. suit ft)r eviction of the appellants from the suit premises
claiming title to the premises on the basis of a decree for specific
performance passed against the landlords of the appellants. Appellants
challenged the title of the respondents contending that the decree was
fraudulently obtained. The finding of the S.C. Court in substance has
established that respondents succeeded in proving the relationship of landlord
and tenant. But the S.C. Court proceeded to examine the paramount title of the
respondents and held that the decree for specific performance was fraudulently
obtainedand therefore the respondents did not acquire title to the suit
premises and dismissed the suit.
S.C.C. Judge had no jurisdiction to go into the question of paramount title and
in doing so to set aside the decree of a Civil Court obtained by the predecessor
of the plaintiff in a suit for specific performance of contract. The Small
Causes Court has no jurisdiction to go into the question of title, except
Kuinar Chowdhury and another Vs. Md. Au Hossain and others, I BLD(AD)128
11 DLR 427 — Cited.
Sections — 15. 16 and 23
S.C.C. suit—The suit falling within the
exclusive jurisdiction of the Small Causes Court Judge but erroneously tried by
a Court other than the SCC Judge suffers from no legal infirmity and the trial
cannot be vitiated. Section 23 of the Small Cause Courts Act negatives the
proposition that section 16 of the Act altogether deprives the civil Court of
the jurisdiction conferred by section 9 of the Code in respect of the Small
Wahida Rashid and another Vs. Miron Mohammad Zahidul Huq, 11BLD (HCD) 79:
A.1.R.l956 (Mad) 610; 9 DLR (PC) o86; A.I.R.1956 (Mad) 611: 6DLR 588; 25 DLR
142: A,I.R.1938 (Rangoon) 35; 22 DLR 444— Cited.
Section — 17(1) Proviso
S.C.C decree passed exparte — Application
to set aside the decree — Deposit of decretal amount or furnishing of security
with the application, not mandatory — Application to set aside the decree along
with another application seeking Courts direction may be filed within the
period of limitation—Court may pass order beyond the period of limitation
giving direction — Compliance with the Courts direction within the time fixed
— Application to set aside the decree is maintainable.
Behari Saha Vs.Nitya Gopal Saha, 1BLD (AD)95
AIR. 1931 (Lah) 332; l.L.R. 43 (Mad) 597; (1894)108 P.R. 1894: (1910)54 P.R.
1910: 6 IC. 945; (1919) 50 IC. 917;
Cal. 83; (1907) 9 Born. L.R. 883; (1905) 32 Cal. 339: 1 C.L.J.l43: I.L.R.43
(Mad)579: 55 IC. 977 (F.B); AIR. 1928 (All) 111: 53 All. 254: A.I.R.
l93l(Lah)332; 54 C.W.N.(2DR)67; 24C.W.N. 380— Cited.
Section — 17(1)
Application for setting aside an exparte
deeree passed in a S.C.C. Suit — Conditions laid down in the proviso of
section 17(1) of S.C.C. Act must be fulfilled normally —. But non-compliance
with such conditions will not affect the order setting aside the exparte decree
restoring the S.C.C. suit when it escaped notice of either of the Court or of
the plaintiff- respondent leading to granting relief to the defendant — appellant
— Plaintiff-respondent cannot be said to be prejudicially affected if the case
is determined on merits in the presence of both parties — One cannot take
advantage of his own wrong when, as in the pie- sent case, by taking no
objection at the right moment before the right Court, one allows its machinery
to function and takes objection at the conclusion of the case when it goes
against him and this also not by an appropriate proceeding.
Marshed Ahmed Vs. Md. Meher Ali and others, 3 BLD(AD) 107
33 DLR (AD)130—Cited.
Section — 23
S.C.C. Suit — Whether question of title can be decided in such a suit — S.C.C.
Act gives discretion to the Court to return a plaint involving question of
title — This power is discretionary and it is indicated that a Court of Small
Cause has the power to decide incidentally question of title in a suit which is
essentially a S.C.C. matter — In the instant case for eviction of a tenant the
plaintiff wasnot required to prove his title to the suit premises — If he could
prove that he had inducted the deceased defendant, any other person in his
place would be estopped from denying the title of the plaintiff — Evidence Act.
1872(1 of 1872). S. 116.
Gopal Lala Vs. Hajee Abdul Hainid Khan and others, 3BLD(HCD)274
Sections —25 and 28A
Revision—Whether revision lies against
an order of transfer of a S.C.C. suit by the District Judge — Reivisional
jurisdiction when attracted — It is attracted only in a case decided by a Small
Causes Court to satisfy whether the decree or order made by such Court was
according to law — Revisional jurisdiction under section 25 S.C.C. Act does not
confer power of revision of an order of transfer of a S.C.C. suit under section
Khalek Mia Vs. Maya Debi and others, 4 BLD(AD)3
AiR. 1938 Lahore 95; (1887)18 Q.B.D.704 — Cited.
Section — 25
Revision—Whether appeal or revision
lies against a decision in a suit of the nature of small causes — No appeal
lies against a decision in a suit of the nature of small causes if the Court
trying had S.C.C. jurisdiction but a revision will lie before the High Court.
Khorshed Akhtar Khanam Vs. Haji Mohammad Ayub Hossain, 4BLD (HCD) 62
25DLR 142: 1 2DLR380; 29DLR3 14; 29DLR380 — Cited.
Section — 25
Attornment — Tenant’s plea against attornment
when cannot be considered — Defendant contends hat mere deposit of rent did
not ipso facto prove attornrnent by him to the palintilis predecessor — The
contention cannot be considered because it is found that the question of
attornment was not raised either in the pleading or in the proceeding at any
time — There is no substance in the question raised that there existed no
relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties.
Nath Saha Vs. Alfazuddin Ahniçd and others, 8 BLD (AD) 210
33DLR(AD)37 — Cited
Section — 25
Revision—Scope, reversal of finding of
S,C.C. Court by the High Court Division. whether justified — Trial Courts
finding based on elaborate and detailed consideration of both the documentary
evidence (Ext.A) and the attendant circumstances, the High Court Division
exceeded its revisional jurisdiction under se n 25 of the Small Cause Courts
Act in reversing the finding of fact arrived at by the trial Court which
decreed the suit for eviction of the tenant. The reversal of the finding of
fact on the grounds stated by the High Court Division is totally unwarranted.
The High Court Division itself has failed to read the judgment of the learned
S.C.C. Judge properly.
Abdur Razzaq alias Md. Raja Miah Vs. Md. Ansar Au and another, 12 BLD (AD) 133
32 DLR (AD) 170—Cited.