Translate
Text Highlighter

Bookmark

PDF

Share

Report a problem
AMICUS AI
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Case Number
Attorney(S)
  • For the Appellant: D. Radhakrishna Murty, Amicus Curiae.
Judges
  • K. Subba Rao, C.J
  • Jaganmohan Reddy, J.
Acts
Are you a practicing lawyer?
Enhance your digital presence and reach by creating a Casemine profile.
Upload pleading to use the new AI search
Click here to upload
Cites
Cited by
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Case Number
Attorney(S)
  • For the Appellant: D. Radhakrishna Murty, Amicus Curiae.
Judges
  • K. Subba Rao, C.J
  • Jaganmohan Reddy, J.
Acts
See more information ...
Smart Summary

Structured Summary of the Opinion

Factual and Procedural Background

Two original suits for recovery of rent — O.S. No. 85 of 1955 and O.S. No. 361 of 1955 — were filed in the Court of the District Munsif, Kurnool. At the time those suits were filed, the Subordinate Judge's Court in Kurnool did not possess small cause jurisdiction. Subsequently, by a High Court of Andhra notification (Roc. No. 2823/55-B-1 dated 7-2-1955, published 22-12-1955), the Subordinate Judge's Court was invested with small cause jurisdiction within the local limits of the District Munsif of Kurnool with a pecuniary limit of Rs. 2,000. The reference to the High Court (under Order XLVI, Rule 6(1), Code of Civil Procedure) posed the question whether the District Munsif retained jurisdiction to dispose of the said suits as original suits or whether they should be transferred to the Subordinate Judge's Court exercising small cause jurisdiction.

Legal Issues Presented

  1. Whether, after the conferment of small cause jurisdiction on the Subordinate Judge's Court (by notification published after institution of the suits), the District Munsif continues to have jurisdiction to try suits that were originally instituted in the District Munsif's Court.
  2. Whether the subsequent conferment of small cause jurisdiction on a different court entitles the Munsif's Court to return the plaint under Order VII, Rule 10, Civil Procedure Code (i.e., whether the plaint can be returned at any stage because another court later became the proper forum).

Arguments of the Parties

Government Pleader's Arguments

  • The Government pleader relied on Order VII, Rule 10 of the Civil Procedure Code, arguing that the jurisdiction of the Munsif's Court to try the suit is saved notwithstanding the subsequent conferment of small cause powers on the Subordinate Judge's Court. The pleader's position was that a plaint can be returned only if, at the time the plaint was filed, there was another court in which the suit should have been instituted; because no small cause jurisdiction existed in the Subordinate Judge's Court at the time of filing, the plaint could not be returned later and the Munsif should proceed with trial.
  • The Government pleader also relied on the view expressed by Saunders J in Hichha Mali v. Hiri Mali (AIR 1934 Pat 504), which accepted the saving effect of the procedure provision; the Court in the present opinion expressly accepted Saunders J's view.

Table of Precedents Cited

Precedent Rule or Principle Cited For Application by the Court
Appalanarasimham v. Mutyala Rao, 1956 Andhra WR 280 (A) Held that where a Subordinate Judge was invested with small cause jurisdiction, the District Munsif had no further jurisdiction to proceed with a suit triable by the small cause side (relying on Section 16 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act). The Court described the decision and its conclusion rejecting the Munsif's jurisdiction in that case; but also noted that the counsel before that court had not placed certain Madras High Court decisions before the judge. The opinion discussed Appalanarasimham as an authority taking the contrary view to the one ultimately followed in the present reference.
Hichha Mali v. Hiri Mali, AIR 1934 Pat 504 Saunders J's view that Order VII, Rule 10 (CPC) saves the jurisdiction of the Court in which a suit was properly instituted at the time of filing, despite the subsequent conferment of small cause powers on another Court. The present Court respectfully accepted Saunders J's view and relied upon it to hold that the District Munsif retains jurisdiction.
Hari Kamayya v. Har Venkayya, ILR 26 Mad 212 (Full Bench) Interpretation of Section 32(2) of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act: the subsection prevents retrospectivity of investment with small cause jurisdiction and protects parties' rights (including rights of appeal) in suits commenced before such investment; a court could not transform a regular suit into a small cause suit retrospectively. The Court treated the Full Bench principle as a foundational rule against retrospectivity. Although the facts of that decision involved the same court being invested (not two different courts), the Court applied the principle that conferment of small cause jurisdiction has no retrospective effect to the present situation.
Kannan Nambiar v. Anantan Nambiar, ILR 29 Mad 124 (Division Bench) Held that where a suit was instituted as an original suit in the District Munsif's Court and subsequently small cause powers were conferred on a different District Court, the suit may remain for trial in the District Munsif's Court. The Court cited this Division Bench ruling as an express authority directly on the present question and relied upon it to support the conclusion that the Munsif's Court continued to have jurisdiction.
Sambhu Dhanaji v. Ram Pithu, ILR 28 Bom 244 Following the Full Bench principle (non-retrospectivity) in circumstances where the same Court acquired small cause powers. Cited as one of several decisions that followed the Madras Full Bench view, although in those cases the invested court and the court where the suit was filed were the same; the present Court referenced these authorities as supportive of the non-retrospectivity principle.
Radha Kant Missir v. Purna Chander Tripathi, AIR 1930 Pat 270 Another decision following the Full Bench principle concerning non-retrospectivity in the conferment of small cause jurisdiction. Cited as part of the line of authority upholding the same principle; noted that these decisions concerned situations where the court which got small cause jurisdiction was the same as the court where suits were pending.
Bindesri v. Ganga Prasad, AIR 1919 All 55 Decision following the Full Bench principle on non-retrospectivity (again, in contexts where the same Court was involved). Cited alongside the other cases as part of the supportive precedent for the Full Bench principle; the Court noted the similarity of those cases to the Full Bench facts (same court being invested).

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The Court's analysis proceeded in several discrete steps rooted in statutory interpretation and precedent:

  1. Statutory framework — The Court read the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act and the Madras Civil Courts Act together. It identified Section 5 (power to establish small cause courts), Section 16 (a suit cognisable by a Court of Small Causes shall not be tried by any other Court, save as expressly provided), and Section 32 (which makes Chapters III and IV applicable to courts invested with small cause jurisdiction and contains a saving clause in sub-section (2) preserving jurisdiction for suits instituted or proceedings commenced before investment).
  2. Scope and limits of Section 32(2) — The Court observed that Section 32(2)'s saving applies where the same court in which the suit was pending is invested with small cause jurisdiction. It held that Section 32(2) does not, in explicit terms, cover situations in which a suit was instituted in one court while small cause jurisdiction is conferred on a different court.
  3. Consequence of Section 16 — Because the present case involves different courts (suit instituted in District Munsif; small cause powers conferred on Subordinate Judges Court), Section 16 would, on its face, make the Subordinate Judge's Court the only competent court to exercise jurisdiction unless some other statutory provision preserved the Munsif's jurisdiction.
  4. Role of Order VII, Rule 10 CPC — The Government pleader relied on Order VII, Rule 10 (that a plaint shall at any stage be returned to be presented to the Court in which the suit should have been instituted). The Court interpreted that rule to mean a plaint could be returned only if, at the time it was filed, there existed another court in which it should have been instituted. Since the Subordinate Judge's Court did not have small cause jurisdiction at the time of filing, the subsequent conferment could not be used to return the plaint; therefore the Munsif must proceed.
  5. Acceptance of Saunders J's approach — The Court accepted the view in Hichha Mali v. Hiri Mali (Saunders J) that Order VII, Rule 10 protects the jurisdiction of the court in which a suit was properly instituted at the time of filing, and that a later conferment of jurisdiction on another court does not disentitle the original court to try the suit.
  6. Precedent synthesis — The Court examined the Madras Full Bench decision in Hari Kamayya v. Har Venkayya (interpreting Section 32(2) to avoid retrospectivity and protect rights of appeal) and related Division Bench authority (Kannan Nambiar v. Anantan Nambiar) which held that suits instituted in a Munsif's Court could remain there despite later conferment of small cause powers elsewhere. The Court distinguished factual differences where necessary (same-court vs different-court investments) but applied the Full Bench principle against retrospectivity to the present facts.
  7. Binding nature of precedent — The Court recognized itself as bound by the Madras decisions and by the line of authority that followed them. Finding no compelling reason to depart, it followed those authorities in concluding that the District Munsif retained jurisdiction.

Holding and Implications

Holding: The Court held that the Court of the District Munsif continues to have jurisdiction to hear the suits as original suits. Answer: the District Munsif retains jurisdiction to try the suits.

Implications:

  • Direct effect on the parties: The two suits (O.S. No. 85 of 1955 and O.S. No. 361 of 1955) that were originally instituted in the District Munsif's Court are to remain and be tried by that Court; they are not to be transferred to the Subordinate Judge's Court merely because small cause jurisdiction was conferred on the latter after institution.
  • Precedential effect: The Court followed existing Full Bench and Division Bench authority (and Saunders J's view) rather than creating a new departure; it explicitly stated it was bound by the established Bench decision and did not refer the matter to a Full Bench. Thus, the decision applies the prior principle against retrospectivity and does not purport to set a novel rule beyond the precedents relied upon.

Answered accordingly. The Court acknowledged assistance from an Amicus Curiae but the opinion contains no extension of law beyond application of the statutes and cited authorities to the facts at hand.

Show full summary ...

    Medam Venkata Subbaramiah Setty v. K. Hari Rao

    Judgement

    SUBBA RAO, C.J. :- This is a reference made to this Court by the District Munsif of Kurnool under, Order XLVI, Rule 6 (1), Code of Civil Procedure.

    2. The facts that gave rise to the reference may be briefly stated. Two suits, O. S. No. 85 of 1955 and O. S. No. 361 of 1955 were filed in the Court of the District Munsif, Kurnool for the recovery of rent. The plaintiff and the defendant in both the suits were the same. The said suits were filed as original suits in the District Munsifs Court as at that time the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Kurnool did not have small cause jurisdiction. Subsequently, by a notification of the High Court of Andhra in Roc. No. 2823/55-B-1 dated 7-2-1955 published at page 839 of Part II of the Andhra Gazette dated 22-12-1955, the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Kurnool was invested with small cause jurisdiction over the local limits of the District Munsif of Kurnool with effect from the date of the publication of the notification in the gazette and the pecuniary limit of that jurisdiction was fixed at Rs. 2,000/-. The question is whether the District Munsif continues to have jurisdiction to dispose of the said suits as original suits or they should be transferred to the Subordinate Judges Court to be decided by it in exercise of its small cause jurisdiction.

    3. The said question directly arose before Umamaheswaram, J. in Appalanarasimham v. Mutyala Rao, 1956 Andhra WR 280 (A). There, the respondent instituted a suit on 26th February 1954 in the Court of the District Munsif for recovery of a sum of Rs. 1033-12-9. By the aforesaid notification, the jurisdiction of the Subordinate Judge exercising small cause powers had been increased up to an amount of Rs.2000/-. The petitioner raised the objection before the District Munsif that he had no jurisdiction to try the suit. The objection was overruled. The learned Judge, disagreeing with the view of the District Munsif, held that as the Subordinate Judge was invested with jurisdiction to try the suit on the small cause side, the District Munsif had no further jurisdiction to proceed with the suit though it was rightly instituted before him. At page 281, the learned judge gave his reasoning for his conclusion as follows :

    "The Section (Section 16 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act) is quite clear that a suit cognisable by the Court of Small Causes shall not be tried by any other Court. As the Subordinate judge was invested with jurisdiction to try the suit on the small cause side, the District Munsif had no further jurisdiction to proceed with the suit though it was rightly instituted before him.

    Unfortunately, the learned Counsel, who appeared before the learned Judge, did not bring to his notice the decision of the Full Bench of the Madras High Court and also the decision of a Division Bench of the same High Court following the said Full Bench decision.

    4. Before adverting to the said two decisions, it may be convenient to read the relevant sections of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act and the Madras Civil Courts Act (III of 1873).

    Provincial Small Cause Courts Act :

    Section 5 :

    (1) The State Government may, by order in writing, establish a Court of Small Causes at any place with the territories under its administration beyond the local limits for the time being of the ordinary original Civil jurisdiction of a High Court of Judicature established in a Presidency Town. Section 16 :

    Save as expressly provided by this Act or any other enactment, for the time being in force, a suit cognisable by a Court of Small Causes shall not be tried by any other Court having jurisdiction within the local limits of the jurisdiction of the Court of Small Causes by which the suit is triable. Section 32 :

    (1) So much of Chapters III and IV as relates to

    (a) the nature of the suits cognisable by Court of small causes,

    (b) the exclusion of the jurisdiction of other Courts in those suits,

    x x x x x

    applies to Courts invested by or under any enactment for the time being in force with the jurisdiction of a Court of Small Causes so far as regards the exercise of that jurisdiction by those Courts.

    (2) Nothing in sub-section (1) with respect to court invested with the jurisdiction of a Court of Small Causes applies to suits instituted or proceeding commenced in those Courts before the date on which they were invested with that jurisdiction.

    Madras Civil Courts Act (III of 1873) :

    Section 28 :

    The High Court may, by notification in the Official Gazette, invest within such local limits as it shall from time to time appoint, any District or Subordinate Judge with the jurisdiction of a judge of a Court of Small Causes for the trial of suits cognisable by such Courts up to the amount of rupees two thousand, and any District Munsif with the same jurisdiction up to the amount of Rupees five hundred, and may, by like notification, whenever it thinks fit, withdraw such jurisdiction from the District or Subordinate Judge or Munsif invested."

    4a. The aforesaid provisions may be summarised thus : Section 5 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act empowers the State Government to establish a Court of Small Causes at any place within the territories under its administration. Section 28 of the Civil Courts Act confers power on the High Court to invest any District or Subordinate Judge with the Jurisdiction of a Judge of a Court of Small Causes. Where a Court of Small Causes was constituted by the Government, save as expressly provided by the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act or any other enactment, Section 16 bars the jurisdiction of any other Court having jurisdiction within its local limits to entertain a suit cognisable by a Court of Small Causes. Section 32 makes so much of Chapters III and IV as to matters related therein applicable to Courts invested with the jurisdiction of a Court of Small Causes under any other Act; This section, in effect, lays down that in almost all important respects Courts invested with small cause powers stand on the same footing as Courts functioning entirely as Small Cause Courts. By reason of this provision, S. 16 of the Act which is in Chapter III, is applicable to Court invested with small cause powers. But sub-section (2) of Section 32, which embodies a saving clause, preserves the jurisdiction of a Court in respect of a suit instituted or proceedings taken before such Court is invested with small cause jurisdiction.

    But this Section in terms is not comprehensive enough to take in a case where a suit was instituted in one Court and the jurisdiction of a Court of Small Causes was conferred on a different Court. In the present case, the suit was originally filed in the District Munsifs Court and the High Court conferred small cause powers on the Subordinate Judges Court, such a case is directly covered by Section 16. Therefore, unless the jurisdiction of the District Munsifs Court to try the suit is saved by any other provisions of the Act or by other enactment for the time being in force, the only Court competent to exercise jurisdiction would be the Subordinate Court on whom small cause powers have been conferred.

    5. Reliance is placed by the Government pleader on order 7, Rule 10 Civil Procedure Code in support of his contention that the jurisdiction of the Munsifs Court to try a suit is saved notwithstanding the subsequent conferment of small cause powers on the Subordinate Judges Court. Order 7, R. 10 reads;

    "The plaint shall at any stage of the suit be returned to be presented to the Court in which the suit should have been instituted."

    Under this statutory provision, a plaint could be returned only if at the time the plaint was filed, there was another court in which the suit should have been instituted. In the present case, at the time of the suits in the District Munsifs Court were filed, it cannot be said that the suits should have been filed in the Subordinate Judges Court for, at that time, no small cause powers were conferred on that Court. The subsequent conferment of small cause powers on another Court would not enable the District Munsifs Court to return the plaint and, therefore, it should proceed with the trial of the suit.

    This provision, in our view, saves the jurisdiction of the District Munsifs Court and preserves it notwithstanding the subsequent conferment of small cause powers on another Court. This was the view expressed by Saunders J in Hichha Mali v. Hiri Mali AIR 1934 Pat 504 (B) and we respectfully accept his view. If so, it follows that the District Munsifs Court has jurisdiction to try the suit.

    6. We shall now proceed to consider the cases cited at the Bar. A Full Bench of the Madras High Court in Hari Kamayya v. Har Venkayya, ILR 26 Mad 212 (C) considered the scope of Section 32(2) of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act. The facts in that case were : A District Munsif who had small cause jurisdiction up to Rs. 100/- had on his file on the regular side of his Court suits of a small cause nature for amount between Rs. 100/- and Rs. 200/- some of which were partly tried. The Small Cause jurisdiction was then extended to Rs. 200/- whereupon he transferred the cases in question to his small cause file and tried and disposed of them as small causes. The Full Bench held that the transfer was not in accordance with law. In so holding, the Full Bench made the following observations on the effect of Section 32(2) : "The object of the sub-section appears to have been to prevent doubts arising as to whether the investment of a Court with small cause jurisdiction acted restrospectively with reference to a suit which had been commenced in that Court before the Court was so invested. The effect of holding that, in a case like the present, it was competent for the Court to transform a regular suit into a small cause suit would be to deprive a party of a right of appeal which he had at the time he instituted his suit.

    This decision does not directly apply to the present case, as in that case, the powers of a small cause Court were conferred on the same Court wherein the original suit was pending. That situation was governed by the provisions of Section 32(2) of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act. But the principle accepted by the Full Bench, namely that the conferment of small cause jurisdiction had no retrospectivity inasmuch as the party would be deprived of his right of appeal is equally applicable to a suit pending in a different Court.

    7. There was an express ruling on the present question by a Division Bench of the Madras High Court Kannan Nambiar v. Anantan Nambiar ILR 29 Mad 124 (D). There, a suit was instituted as an original suit in the District Munsifs Court. Subsequently, small cause powers were conferred on the District Court in respect of the subject matter of the suit. In holding that the suit may remain for trial in the District Munsifs Court, the learned Judges observed :

    "When the suits were instituted in the Bandagara Court, they were rightly instituted there as original suits and under the ruling of ILR 26 Mad 212 (C) referred to by the District Judge, they remained for trial as original suits.

    8. It is no doubt true that there is an essential distinction between the facts in ILR 26 Mad 212 (C) and ILR 29 Mad 124 (D) Viz: that in the former small cause powers were conferred on the Court wherein the suit was already pending whereas in the latter the two courts were different. But, the learned Judges, presumably relying upon the principle recognised in the Full Bench Decision Viz : that Section 32(2) was only a recognition of the rule against retrospectivity, held that the Munsifs Court continued to have jurisdiction to try the suit. That decision was given in 1905 and it has stood the test of time for half a century. We do not think we are justified in in differing from this judgment unless there are compelling reasons, which we do not find in this case.

    9. The Full Bench decision was followed by various High Courts. See Sambhu Dhanaji v. Ram Pithu, ILR 28 Bom 244 (E) Radha Kant Missir v. Purna Chander Tripathi, AIR 1930 Pat 270 (F) and Bindesri v. Ganga Prasad, AIR 1919 All 55 (G). But, in all these cases, the Court wherein the suit was filed and the Court on which small cause powers were conferred were the same.

    10. We are bound by the Bench decision and do not see any reason to differ from it or refer the case to a Full Bench.

    11. In the result, we hold that the Court of the District Munsif continue to have jurisdiction to hear the suit as an original suit. The reference is answered accordingly. We are grateful to Sri D. Radha Krishnamurthy for helping us in the case as Amicus Curiae.

    Answer accordingly

    Use AI to get other relevant cases.
    Try AI Pro free for 7 days Upgrade to AI Pro

    Comments

    Medam Venkata Subbaramiah Setty v. K. Hari Rao
    (Feb 7, 1957)