- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
Musammat Sukha And Anr. v. Raghunath Das
Structured Summary of the Opinion
Factual and Procedural Background
A suit of the nature cognizable by a Small Cause Court was originally instituted in the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Muttra, a Court invested with the jurisdiction of a Court of Small Causes under the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act (IX of 1887). The District Judge, invoking Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure, transferred that suit (together with certain others) to the Court of the Munsif of Muttra, which at that time was not a Court invested with Small Cause Court jurisdiction.
The District Judge's transfer order expressly referred to Section 24, Clause (4), of the Code. The Munsif tried the suit and decreed the plaintiff's claim. The defendants then appealed to the District Judge; the Subordinate Judge (sitting in appeal) held that by virtue of Section 24(4) the transferee Court must be deemed, for the purposes of that suit, to have been a Court of Small Causes and therefore no appeal lay. The defendants applied to this Court for revision; the application was referred to a Bench of two Judges because a point of law of difficulty was raised.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether the phrase "a Court of Small Causes" in Section 24, Sub-section (4), of the Code of Civil Procedure means only Courts constituted under the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act (Act IX of 1887), or whether it also includes Courts exercising the jurisdiction of a Court of Small Causes (i.e., Courts invested with Small Cause Court jurisdiction).
- Whether, in the particular circumstances of a transfer under Section 24(4), an appeal lay from the Munsif's decree to the District Court (Subordinate Judge), or whether the transferee Court must be treated as a Court of Small Causes for the suit and thus render the decree non-appealable as held by the Subordinate Judge.
Arguments of the Parties
Defendants' Arguments
- The Subordinate Judge erred in holding that no appeal lay; the defendants contended that an appeal did lie to the District Judge (i.e., that the transferee Court was not, for the purposes of the suit, a Court of Small Causes).
- They argued that the Subordinate Judge had erroneously refused to exercise jurisdiction vested in him by law.
The opinion notes that the opposite side was not represented before this Court.
Table of Precedents Cited
| Precedent | Rule or Principle Cited For | Application by the Court |
|---|---|---|
| Shiam Behari Lal v. Kali, 22 Ind. Cas. 909 : 12 A. L.J. 109 | Decisions concerning succession where a Munsif not invested with Small Cause Court powers succeeds to one who was invested. | The Court observed this case did not involve interpretation of Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure and therefore has no direct bearing on the present question. |
| Sarju Prasad v. Mahadeo Pande, 29 Ind. Cas. 996 : 13 A. L.J. 639 : 37 A. 450 | Similarly concerned with succession issues regarding Munsifs and Small Cause Court powers. | Held not directly relevant to interpretation of Section 24; it dealt with succession rather than transfer. |
| Dulal Chandra Deb v. Ram Narain Deb, 31 C. 1057 | Case similar to the above succession cases; reference to Section 24 was regarded as obiter dicta. | The Court treated its references to Section 24 as substantially obiter and thus not directly controlling the present transfer issue. |
| Mangal Sen v. Rup Chand, 13 A. 324 : A. W. N. (1891) 96 : 7 Ind. Dec. (N.S.) 205 | Older decision closer in fact to the present case; quoted as authority that the words "a Court of Small Causes" include Courts invested with Small Cause Court jurisdiction. | The Court noted this decision has been relied on historically to support the inclusive interpretation; it is treated as supportive of the view adopted in the present opinion. |
| Ramchandra v. Ganesh, 23 B. 382 : 12 Ind. Dec. (N.S.) 254 | Decision of the Bombay High Court taking the contrary view — that "a Court of Small Causes" means only a Court properly and strictly so called (i.e., constituted under Act IX of 1887). | The Court regarded this as the only directly contrary decision but concluded that other considerations and later wording of the Code weaken the force of this authority; the Court rejected the Bombay view for the purposes of this case. |
| Sankararama Aiyar v. Padmanabha Aiyar, 17 Ind. Cas. 425 : 23 M. L.J. 373 : (1912) M. W. N. 1086 : 38 M. 25 | Decision directly in point which dissents from the Bombay decision and approves the principle in Mangal Sen's case. | The Court relied on this case as directly in point and as supporting the inclusive interpretation; it expressly approved the principle laid down therein. |
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The Court framed the central interpretive question as whether the phrase "a Court of Small Causes" in Section 24(4) of the Code of Civil Procedure refers exclusively to Courts constituted under the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act (Act IX of 1887) or whether it also includes Courts "invested with" the jurisdiction of a Court of Small Causes.
The majority analysis proceeded along the following lines, based on the text of the statutes and the authorities referred to in the opinion:
- Plain meaning and burden of proof: The Court considered that the plain prima facie meaning of the words in Section 24(4) is against the narrow construction urged by the defendants (or, more precisely, by those authorities that adopted the narrow construction). The Court held that the burden lies on those who maintain that the phrase is exclusive.
-
Twofold answer to the objection based on executive power: The Court addressed the objection that a District Judge's mere order of transfer could not properly have the effect of investing another presiding officer with powers that ordinarily can only be conferred by Local Government.
- First, the Court observed Section 24(4) must be given meaning: at a minimum it must permit the District Court to transfer a suit pending in a Court constituted under the Small Cause Courts Act to another Court that is neither constituted under that Act nor invested with Small Cause Court jurisdiction, and to deem that transferee Court to be a Court of Small Causes for the purposes of the particular suit.
- Second, the Court emphasized the limited operation of Section 24(4): its effect is confined to particular cases transferred by special order of the High Court or District Court, and thus the Legislature could reasonably trust District Courts' discretion in making such transfers based on local knowledge and conditions.
- Statutory context and textual change: The Court compared the wording of the earlier Code (Act XIV of 1882, Section 5) with the present Code (Act V of 1908). The earlier wording drew a clearer distinction between courts constituted under Act IX of 1887 and other courts exercising like jurisdiction. The new Code's Section 7 (corresponding to the old Section 5) explicitly speaks of both "Courts constituted under the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, 1887" and "Courts exercising the jurisdiction of a Court of Small Causes under that Act" as the two classes. The Court inferred that when the later Section 24(4) uses the general expression "a Court of Small Causes," the Legislature likely intended it to be inclusive of the two classes mentioned in Section 7.
- Consideration of authorities: The Court reviewed the case-law cited. It found many earlier decisions concerned with succession (not transfer) and thus not directly controlling. It identified Mangal Sen's case and Sankararama Aiyar as supportive of the inclusive interpretation, and treated the Bombay decision in Ramchandra v. Ganesh as the principal authority to the contrary, but concluded that statutory language and other considerations diminish that contrary authority's persuasiveness.
- Practical and purposive considerations: The Court emphasized that Section 24(4) was intended to preserve the character of a suit of Small Cause Court nature when transferred — it should continue to be tried as such and be subject to the legal incidents of such a suit. The limited, case-by-case operation of the transfer power and the District Court's discretion were relevant to sustaining the inclusive interpretation.
Holding and Implications
Holding: The Court held that the expression "a Court of Small Causes" in Section 24(4) of the Code of Civil Procedure does include Courts invested with Small Cause Court jurisdiction as well as Courts constituted under the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act (Act IX of 1887). In consequence, the revisional application was dismissed.
Direct consequences for the parties:
- The decision of the Subordinate Judge (that no appeal lay because the transferee Court was to be deemed a Court of Small Causes for the suit) was upheld.
- The revisional application brought by the defendants was dismissed.
- The dismissal was ordered without costs, the opinion noting that the opposite side was not represented.
Broader implications: The opinion explains at length why, on statutory construction and by reference to certain earlier authorities, Section 24(4) should be read inclusively. The Court did not purport to lay down any new principle beyond this interpretive conclusion; it relied on and approved earlier decisions (notably Mangal Sen and Sankararama Aiyar) that support the inclusive reading. The opinion does not assert that it establishes a novel precedent beyond these conclusions; its ruling resolves the question as applied to the transfer before the Court.
Prepared from the text of the provided opinion. No information beyond the opinion's content has been added.
1. This is an application in revision which has been referred to a Bench of two Judges owing to a difficulty of the point of law raised. The facts are given in the referring order of Mr. Justice Rafique. A suit was instituted in the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Muttra. This was also a Court invested with the jurisdiction of a Court of Small Causes, within the meaning of Sections 32, 33, 34 and other Sections of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act (IX of 1887). The suit in question was of a Small Cause Court nature, that is to say, had it been tried in the Court in which it was originally instituted it would have been tried as a Small Cause Court suit by a Court lawfully empowered to try it as such, and would have been subject to the provisions of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act as to the right of appeal. The suit in question, however, along with certain others, was transferred by an order of the District Judge to the Court of the Munsif of Muttra for disposal. This was not at that time a Court invested with the jurisdiction of a Court of Small Causes. In his order of transfer the learned District Judge makes an express reference to the provisions of Section 24, Clause (4), of the Code of Civil Procedure. There can be no doubt, therefore, that the Court which ordered the transfer understood that the provisions of this Sub-section would apply to the case and deliberately intended that it should be tried by the learned Munsif as a Court of Small Causes. That Court having decreed the plaintiff's claim the defendants appealed to the District Judge and the appeal came up for disposal before the Subordinate Judge of Muttra. He held that, by reason of the provisions of Section 24, Clause (4), aforesaid, the suit had been tried by a Court which must, for the purpose of that suit, be deemed to have been a Court of Small Causes, and he accordingly held that no appeal lay. The defendants have brought the matter before this Court by means of an application for revision.
2. They contend that the learned Subordinate Judge was wrong, that an appeal did lie to his Court and that he has erroneously refused to exercise a jurisdiction vested in him by law. It is worth while to quote the words of the Sub-section with which we are dealing. Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure confers certain powers of transfer on the High Court or the District Court, and then in Sub-section (4) it is enacted that the Court trying any suit transferred or withdrawn under this Section from a Court of Small Causes shall for purposes of such suit be deemed to be a Court of Small Causes." The question which we have to determine is, whether the words a Court of Small Causes" as used in this Sub-section mean only Courts constituted under the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, 1887, or include also Courts exercising the jurisdiction of a Court of Small Causes under that Act. We have been referred to a good deal of case-law on the subject; but it is worth while to note at the very outest that many of the decided cases have no direct bearing on the question before us, because they do not involve any question as to the interpretation of Section 24 of the present Code of Civil Procedure (Act V of 1908) or of the corresponding section 25 of act xiv of 1882. For instance, in Shiam Behari Lal v. Kali 22 Ind. Cas. 909 : 12 A. L.J. 109 and also in Sarju Prasad v. Mahadeo Pande 29 Ind. Cas. 996 : 13 A. L.J. 639 : 37 A. 450 the questions to be determined had to do with the case of a Munsif not invested with Small Cause Court powers succeeding to the office of a Munsif who was so invested. No question arose in either of these oases as to the interpretation of Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Again is Dulal Chandra Deb v. Ram Narain Deb 31 C. 1057, the question for determination was essentially similar to that in the above two cases, and the reference made to the provisions of Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure can only be regarded as substantially obiter dicta. There is an older case of this Court, that of Mangal Sen v. Rup Chand 13 A. 324 : A. W. N. (1891) 96 : 7 Ind. Dec. (N.S.) 205 in which the facts were more nearly similar to those now before us and in which reference was made to the provisions of Section 25 of the Code of Civil Procedure of 1882. The learned Judges do not base their decision entirely upon the consideration of the terms of this Section : but the case has always been quoted as an authority for the proposition that the words a Court of Small Causes as used in Section 24 (4) of the present Code of Civil Procedure, or in Section 25 of Act XIV of 1882, do include Courts invested with Small Cause Court jurisdiction. The only decision directly to the contrary seems to be that of the Bombay High Court in Ramchandra v. Ganesh 23 B, 382 : 12 Ind. Dec. (N.S.) 254. It has been contended before us that the authority of the decision in Mangal Sen's case 13 A. 324 : A. W. N. (1891) 96 : 7 Ind. Dec. (N.S.) 205 has been shaken by the more recent pronouncements of this Court to which reference has been made, and that the authority of the decision of the Bombay High Court with the reasoning upon which that decision is based, as also the line of reasoning adopted by the learned Judges of the Calcutta High Court in Dulal Chandra Deb v. Ram Narain Deb 31 C. 1057 should prevail with us. The proposition contended for is that the words "a Court of Small Causes" in the Sub-section in question mean a Court properly and strictly so called, and do not include a Court invested with the jurisdiction of a Court of Small Causes. It seems to us that the plain prima facie meaning of the words as they appear in Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure is against this contention, and that the burden lies on those who maintain it. The learned Judges of the Calcutta High Court lay great stress upon the argument that the Legislature cannot be held to have intended that the mere order of a District Judge should have the effect of investing the presiding officer of a particular Court with certain powers, when such powers can only be conferred ordinarily by an order of the Local Government. To this argument there seems to be a twofold answer To begin with the provisions of Section 24, Sub-section (4), of the Code of Civil Procedure, do mean something. On any interpretation, they do mean at least this, that if a suit is pending in a Court constituted under the provisions of the Small Cause Courts Act of 1887, the District Court has power to transfer that suit to another Court which is neither a Court constituted under that Act, nor a Court invested with the jurisdiction of a Court of Small Causes, and that the Court to which the case is transferred will then be deemed, by virtue of the order of transfer, to be a Court of Small Causes for the purposes of that particular suit. It would seem, therefore, that the power which the learned Judges of the Calcutta High Court consider to be "nothing else than disastrous" does in fact exist in certain cases, and the only question is whether it exists in others. In the second place the provisions of Sections 24 (4) of the Code of Civil Procedure are strictly limited in extent. Their operation is limited to particular cases transferred by special order of the High Court or of the District Court. It is not unreasonable to suppose that the Legislature felt considerable confidence in the District Courts, in consideration more particularly of the Intimate acquaintance which such Courts are likely to possess with the personnel and the working of all Courts subordinate to them; so that it was not deemed improper to invest District Courts with powers of transfer in respect of suits of a Small Cause Court nature, and to permit that power to be exercised for the transfer of a case from a Court of Small Causes to a Court which is neither a Court of Small Causes constituted under Act IX of 1887 nor a Court invested with the jurisdiction of a Court of Small Causes. It remains a matter of discretion with the District Court whether or not to pass an order of transfer in any suit; and the apparent intention of the Legislature was that, if a Small Cause Court suit is so transferred, it should not change its nature by reason of the transfer, but should continue to be tried as a Small Cause Court suit and subject to all the legal incidents of such a suit. We find there is one case directly in point which is in opposition to the view of the Bombay High Court and follows in principle the older decision of this Court in Mangal Sen's case 13 A. 324 : A. W. N. (1891) 96 : 7 Ind. Dec. (N.S.) 205. This is the case of Sankararama Aiyar v. Padmanabha Aiyar 17 Ind. Cas. 425 : 23 M. L.J. 373 : (1912) M. W. N. 1086 : 38 M. 25. The Bombay case of Ramachandra v. Ganesh 23 B. 382 : 12 Ind. Dec. (N.S.) 254 and the Calcutta case already referred to are therein expressly dissented from, and the principle laid down by the Allahabad High Court in Mangal sen's case 13 A. 324 : A. W. N. (1891) 96 : 7 Ind. Dec. (N.S.) 205 is approved. The learned Judges of the Bombay High Court purport to base their decision upon a comparison of the wordings of certain Sections, in the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, 1887, with the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure now reproduced in Sections 7 and 24 of Act V of 1908. They point out truly enough, that Act IX of 1887 draws a clear distinction between Courts of Small Causes which are Such exclusively and for all purposes, and Courts which are invested with the jurisdiction of a Court of Small Causes. They then refer to the wording of Section 5 of the former Code of Civil Procedure (Act XIV of 1882). That Section refers to "Courts of Small Causes constituted under Act IX of 1887" and all other Courts exercising the jurisdiction of a Court of Small Causes" as two different kinds or descriptions of Court. Prom this the learned Judges argue that when, in a later Section, reference is made to "a Court of Small Causes," those words should be read as if the entire expression "a Court of Small Causes constituted under Act IX of 1887" had been used, and that the Legislature did not intend to include in that expression other Courts exercising the jurisdiction of a Court of Small Causes. The point is a fine one; but it would certainly appear as if any force it may ever have possessed has been greatly weakened by a slight alteration in the wording of the present Code. The Section corresponding to Section 5 of Act XIV of 1882 is Section 7 of Act V of 1908. Instead of speaking of Courts of Small Causes constituted under Act IX of 1887," the new Code speaks of "Courts constituted under the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act. 1887, or Courts exercising the jurisdiction of a Court of Small Causes under that Act." If any inference is to be drawn from the wording of this Section, one would rather be inclined to suppose that when, in a later Section, i.e., Section 24 (4), the general expression a Court of Small Causes" is used, the intention of the Legislature was to make it an expression inclusive of the two classes of Courts referred to in Section 7. On the whole, therefore, upon a consideration of the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure and of Act IX of 1887 and of all the various authorities to which reference has been made, we think that the view on which the learned Subordinate Judge acted in the present case was correct. We agree with the learned Judges of the Madras High Court in holding that the expression a Court of Small Causes" in Section 24 (4) of the Code of Civil Procedure does include Courts invested with Small Cause Court jurisdiction as well as Courts constituted under Act IX of 1887. The Legislature apparently intended that the District Court should have power to make an order of transfer, such as has been made in the present case, trusting to the discretion of that Court, and its knowledge of local conditions, not to make an order of transfer to a Court not competent to make a proper exercise of the special powers which an order of transfer carries with it in respect of particular cases so transferred. There seems, therefore, no foundation for the plea on which this revisional application is based and we dismiss it accordingly, but without costs, as the opposite side is not represented.
Walsh, J.
3. I want to add a few words. I think the Subordinate Judge put the case very well in the judgment which is before us and I adopt what he says. It is desirable to emphasize that we are dealing with a case of transfer and not with a case of succession on which most of the decided cases have turned, and we are not differing from the decisions in Shiam Behari Lal v. Kali 22 Ind. Cas. 909 : 12 A. L.J. 109 and Sarju Prasad v. Mahadeo Pande 29 Ind. Cas. 996 : 13 A. L.J. 639 : 37 A. 450 referred to above. On a point of practice of this kind it is desirable to avoid differences. But as the Madras High Court has differed irretrievably from the Bombay High Court, it is impossible for us not to differ from one of them. It seems to me that the distinction between a Court of Small Causes and a Court invested with the jurisdiction of a Court of Small Causes, which is preserved in the Provincial Small Cause Court Act, has no bearing upon the question of transfer at all. And it is to be observed that Section 33 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, which was not referred to in argument because we had no argument on the other side, distinctly 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 that Act and the Code of Civil Procedure, be deemed to be different Courts. As there is no such distinction provided between a Court of Small Causes and a Court exercising the jurisdiction of a Small Cause Court, the inference would be that they were not intended to be different Courts for the purpose of the Code of Civil Procedure. Finally one of the principal arguments addressed to us was that the result of our decision would be to invest a Court or rather an individual with jurisdiction to decide unappealable cases which the Legislature intended that he should not try. But that argument, which sounds plausible enough, deals with the question of a Court or person to whom a suit is to be transferred. The Section we are construing deals with the Court from which a suit is to be transferred, and I am unable to see any reason, either in good sense or derived from an examination of the rest of the legislation on the subject, why in respect of this matter there should be any difference between a suit which is to be tried as a Small Cause Court suit by a Court invented with the jurisdiction of a Small Cause Court and a suit which is to be tried by a Court of Small Causes constituted under the Act.
Alert