Citation Codes

Equivalent Citations

citation codes

Case Number

Civil Miscellaneous Petitions Nos. 4205 and 4401 of 1928

Attorney(S)

Mr. K. S. Desikan for the Petitioner.
Mr. P. Satyanarayana Rao for the Respondent.

Judges

Anantakrishna Aiyar, J.

Acts

provisions of Small Cause Court Act and the Madras City Civil Courts Act,
Section 24, Clause 4, Civil P.C. on C. M. P. 2446 of 1916,
SECTION 15 PROVINCIAL SMALL CAUSE COURTS ACT
provisions Section 17, Small Cause Courts Act,
SECTION 3 CITY CIVIL COURT ACT
Section 28, Madras Civil Courts Act,
Clause 1 (b) (ii), Section 24, Civil P.C.,
Section 5 (2), City Civil Courts Act
Sub-clause 4, Section 24, Civil P.C.
Section 17, Small Cause Courts Act,
Section 5 (2), City Civil Court Act.
provisions of Section 24 (L) (b) (ii),
provisions of Section 24 (1) (b) (ii)
Section 24, Clause 4, Civil P.C.
Section 24 (1) (b) (ii), Civil P.C.,
Code of 1882, Section 25,
Section 24, Civil P.C.,

See more information ...

Smart Summary

Structured Summary of the Provided Legal Opinion

Factual and Procedural Background

Two Civil Miscellaneous Petitions were presented for the transfer of certain suits pending in two different subordinate courts. C. M. P. 4205 of 1928 was filed by Murugesa Mudaliar, who was plaintiff in Original Suit No. 58 of 1928 before the District Munsif of Ranipet (North Arcot District). That suit sought recovery of Rs. 870 for goods (brass vessels) allegedly supplied to D. Venkatakesavulu Chetty. An ex parte decree had initially been passed in the Ranipet Court, which was subsequently set aside and the suit posted for hearing.

After the ex parte decree in Ranipet was set aside, Venkatakesavulu Chetty (the defendant in the Ranipet suit) filed Small Cause Suit No. 210 of 1928 in the Subordinate Judge's Court at Bezwada (Kistna District), claiming Rs. 542 relating to the same dealings in brass vessels.

Murugesa Mudaliar applied to transfer the Bezwada small cause suit (No. 210/1928) to the Ranipet District Munsif's Court to be tried along with Original Suit No. 58/1928. Conversely, Venkatakesavulu Chetty applied to transfer Original Suit No. 58/1928 from Ranipet to the Subordinate Judge of Bezwada to be heard with Small Cause Suit No. 210/1928. Interim stays were granted in respect of both suits and the petitions were placed for final disposal. Counsel for both parties were heard.

Legal Issues Presented

Whether the small cause suit pending before the Subordinate Judge of Bezwada (valued at Rs. 542) could be transferred to and tried by the District Munsif of Ranipet under Section 24, Clause 4, Civil P.C., given that the small cause jurisdiction of the District Munsif of Ranipet is limited to a lower monetary amount (reported as Rs. 100 in the opinion).
Whether an order of transfer under Section 24, Clause 4, Civil P.C. can effectively invest a receiving court (or a judge) with the jurisdiction of a Small Cause Court or permit it to try a small cause suit that exceeds its statutory valuation limit, in light of Clause 1(b)(ii), Section 24, Civil P.C., which requires the transferee court to be "competent" to try the suit.
Whether transferring the Ranipet suit to the Subordinate Judge of Bezwada would produce an unjust result by potentially depriving the original plaintiff of a right of appeal, depending on whether an appeal would lie from the transferee court's decision.

Arguments of the Parties

Appellant / Murugesa Mudaliar (represented by Mr. K. S. Desikan)

Argued that Section 24, Clause 4, Civil P.C. permitted transfer of the small cause suit to the District Munsif of Ranipet and that the transferred suit should be tried as a small cause suit by that court.
Contended there was no valuation limit prescribed by Sub‑clause 4, Section 24, which would prevent such a transfer.
Relied on precedents including Sankararama v. Padmanabha, Chhotey Lal v. Lakhmi Chand, and Sukha v. Raghunath Das in support of the proposition that a transferred suit should be treated as if tried by a Court of Small Causes.

Respondent / Venkatakesavulu Chetty (represented by Mr. P. Satyanarayana Rao)

Contended that because the small cause jurisdiction of the District Munsif of Ranipet was less than the value of the Bezwada suit (Rs. 542), the District Munsif did not have jurisdiction to try the suit as a small cause suit.
Relied on Clause 1(b)(ii), Section 24, Civil P.C., which requires that the Court to which a suit is transferred should be competent to try that suit.

Table of Precedents Cited

Precedent	Rule or Principle Cited For	Application by the Court
Sankararama v. Padmanabha [1912] 38 Mad. 25	Interpreted Clause 4, Section 24 to treat the transferee judge as having tried the suit as a small cause suit for the purposes of appeal; question before High Court was whether an appeal lay.	The court found this decision did not decide the present point on competency by valuation because no objection on valuation was pressed before the High Court; therefore it was not helpful on the main issue before the present court.
Chhotey Lal v. Lakhmi Chand [1916] 38 All. 425	Considered whether Section 17, Small Cause Courts Act, applied where a suit transferred under Section 24 was tried by a District Munsif as a small cause suit.	The court noted no objection was raised on valuation there; case was relied on by petitioner but the present court observed the case did not address the valuation/competency objection now central to the matter.
Sukha v. Raghunath Das [1917] 39 All. 214	Held that, by virtue of Section 24, Clause 4, the District Munsif should be taken to have decided the suit as a Court of Small Causes (issue related to whether an appeal lay).	The present court observed the High Court in that case did not argue or decide the question whether a small cause suit could be transferred to a court lacking small cause jurisdiction; thus it was not decisive on the competency point.
Ram Charan Banwari Lal v. Kishori Lal Sarup A.I.R. 1929 All. 50	Considered whether an appeal lay from the tribunal that tried the transferred suit.	The present court treated it as similar to other cases which did not address competency by valuation and therefore not dispositive of the main question here.
In Re: Bagiammal [1917] 32 M.L.J. 258	Considered correctness of transfer from the Small Causes Court to the City Civil Court under Section 24 and regularization under Section 5(2), City Civil Court Act; emphasized Section 24 authorises transfer only to a court competent to try the case.	The present court relied on the Chief Justice's direction that Section 24 only authorises transfer to a competent court and that the City Civil Court could only be empowered to try the case as a small causes case if authorized under Section 5(2) — supporting the competency requirement.
Manikka Chettiar v. Kuppuswamy Naicker A.I.R. 1927 Mad. 321	Expressed the principle "I can only transfer them to a Court which has jurisdiction to try them."	Cited as supporting authority for the proposition that transfers must be to courts competent to try the suit.
C. M. P. 151 of 1917 (order of Oldfield and Bakewell, JJ.)	Directly considered and reversed an order transferring a suit from a Small Causes Court to a District Munsif when it was subsequently discovered that the District Munsif could not ordinarily dispose of the respondent's case as a Small Cause Court because of valuation.	The court regarded this two‑judge order as directly on point and relied on it to conclude that transfers should not be made to courts incompetent because of valuation limits; this decision materially influenced the present court's conclusion.
Madhu Sudan Gope v. Behari Lall Gope [1918] 27 C.L.J. 461	Interpreted Section 24(4) but did not consider the competency requirement under Section 24(1)(b)(ii).	The present court noted this decision referred only to Section 24(4) and did not address competency under Section 24(1)(b)(ii), and the present court declined to prefer it over the two‑judge High Court decision described above.
Uma Charan Sen Gupta v. Chinta Roy [1916] 36 I.C. 881	Addressed whether an appeal lies from the decision of the Subordinate Judge on a transferred suit.	The present court cited it while considering the practical consequences of transfers, particularly the potential finality of decisions and the injustice that might result if appeal rights were thereby lost.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court first framed the threshold question of jurisdiction: whether the Bezwada small cause suit (value Rs. 542) could be transferred to and tried by the District Munsif of Ranipet whose small cause jurisdiction was lower (the opinion notes Rs. 100 under the particular local notification). The petitioner's reliance on Section 24, Clause 4, Civil P.C. and on several precedents was considered, but the court scrutinized whether those precedents actually decided the present competency-by-valuation issue.

The court emphasized Clause 1(b)(ii) of Section 24, Civil P.C., which requires that the court to which a suit is transferred should be "competent to try or dispose of the same." The opinion explains that "competency" is to be understood with reference to the nature and the amount or value of the subject matter of the suit, a formulation that the court noted had been explicit in the previous Code (1882, Section 25) and remains implied under the present Code.

The court rejected the contention that an order of transfer under Sub‑clause 4, Section 24 could itself invest a receiving court with small cause jurisdiction that it does not statutorily possess, or enable a judge invested with small cause jurisdiction up to a particular monetary limit to try as a small cause suit a case exceeding that limit. The reasoning stressed statutory allocation of small cause jurisdiction by the Local Government (under the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act) and by the High Court's notifications (under the Madras Civil Courts Act), and the impracticality and injustice that would follow if transfers could be used to circumvent those statutory limits — especially because no appeals lie against decrees passed in small cause suits.

The court examined earlier decisions relied upon by counsel and found that many dealt only with the issue whether an appeal would lie and did not address competency by valuation. The court attached decisive weight to a two‑judge High Court order (C. M. P. 151 of 1917 by Oldfield and Bakewell, JJ.) in which a transfer was set aside on review when it was discovered that the transferee District Munsif could not ordinarily dispose of the respondent's case as a Small Cause Court because of its valuation. That order directly addressed the competency-by-valuation point and supported the present court's conclusion.

Applying these principles, the court concluded that the small cause suit pending before the Subordinate Judge of Bezwada should not be transferred to be tried by the District Munsif of Ranipet because the District Munsif lacked the requisite small cause jurisdiction/competency for the suit's valuation.

Turning to Venkatakesavulu Chetty's application to transfer the Ranipet suit to Bezwada, the court noted procedural posture and timing (Ranipet suit filed first) and practical alternatives that were open to Venkatakesavulu (filing a separate suit in Ranipet or a counterclaim). The court also analysed the practical consequences of transfer concerning appeal rights: if the Subordinate Judge's decision on a transferred suit were final (i.e., no appeal), then transferring the earlier-filed larger suit might unjustly deprive the plaintiff in Ranipet of an appellate remedy. Given these considerations, the court dismissed Venkatakesavulu's application.

Finally, the court considered Murugesa's prayer to stay the Bezwada proceedings pending disposal of the Ranipet suit and found that staying the small cause suit pending the decision in the Ranipet Court was appropriate in the circumstances. The court left open whether the stay should continue if there were an appeal from the Ranipet Court, indicating that such a question would be considered later if necessary.

Holding and Implications

Holding:

The small cause suit No. 210 of 1928 pending before the Subordinate Judge of Bezwada should not be transferred to the District Munsif of Ranipet to be tried by that court as a small cause suit.
Venkatakesavulu Chetty's application (C. M. P. No. 4,401 of 1928) to transfer Original Suit No. 58 of 1928 from the District Munsif of Ranipet to the Subordinate Judge of Bezwada is dismissed.
The proceedings in Small Cause Suit No. 210 of 1928 on the file of the Subordinate Judge of Bezwada are stayed pending disposal of Suit No. 58 of 1928 on the file of the District Munsif of Ranipet.
No order as to costs was made in any of the petitions.

Implications:

Direct consequences for the parties: the Bezwada suit is to be stayed and will await the outcome of the Ranipet suit; no transfer of the Bezwada suit to the Ranipet District Munsif will occur because that court is not competent to try the suit as a small cause suit due to valuation limits. The application to transfer the Ranipet suit to Bezwada was dismissed to avoid potential prejudice to the plaintiff's appellate rights.

The opinion relied on earlier authorities and an important two‑judge High Court order to reach its conclusion about competency and valuation limits for transfers; it did not purport to set an expansive new legal rule beyond applying the statutory requirement that a transferee court be competent to try the suit. In that respect, no novel precedent‑creating pronouncement was announced beyond the court's application of existing statutory provisions and prior decisions.

Show full summary ...

Murugesa Mudaliar v. Davva Venkata Keasavlu Chetty

1. These are the Civil Miscellaneous petitions for transfer of certain suits pending in the Court of the District Munsif of Ranipet, and the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Bezwada, respectively. The petitioner in C. M. P. 4205 of 1928, is Murugesa Mudaliar, plaintiff in suit 58 of 1928 on the tile of the District Munsif's Court of Ranipet (North Arcot District). He filed that suit against D. Venkatakesavulu Chetty to recover a sum of Rs. 870 alleged to be due in respect of goods (brass vessels) supplied by him to the defendant. After the suit in Ranipet Court was decreed ex parte, it is alleged that the defendant therein (Venkatakesavulu Chetty) filed small cause suit No. 210 of 1928 on the file of the Sub-Court, Bezwada (Kistna District) against Murugesa Mudaliar to recover Rs. 542 alleged to be due in respect of the same dealing in brass vessels. The ex parte decree passed by the District Munsif of Ranipet was subsequently set aside and the suit posted for hearing.

2. Murugesa Mudaliar the plaintiff in the Ranipet suit has applied for the transfer of the small cause suit 210 of 1928 from the file of the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Bezwada to the file of the District Munsif of Ranipet to be tried along with original suit No. 58 of 1928 on the file of the District Munsiff. Venkatakesavulu Chetty, the plaintiff in small cause suit No. 210 of 1928 on the file of the Subordinate Judge of Bezwada has applied for the transfer of original suit 58 of 1928 from the file of the District Munsif of Ranipet to the file of the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Bezwada to be heard along with small cause suit No. 210 of 1928 on the file of the Subordinate Judge.

3. Interim stay has been granted in respect of both the suits, and the above petitions have now come on for final disposal. I have heard Mr. Desikan on be-half of the plaintiff in the Ranipet Munsif's Court suit, and Mr. P. Satyanarayana Rao on behalf of Venkatakesavulu Chetty the plaintiff in the Sub-Court suit.

4. The first question that has to be considered is whether there is jurisdiction to transfer the small cause suit now pending before the Subordinate Judge of Bezwada to the District Munsif of Ranipet (seeing that the value of the small cau3e suit is Rs. 542, whereas the Small Cause jurisdiction of the District Munsif of Ranipet is only Rs. 100, that is less than Rs. 542). It is contended by Mr. K.S. Desikan that under Section 24, Clause 4, Civil P.C., the transfer could be made and that the result of the transfer would be that the transferred suit should be tried as a small cause suit by the District Munsif, and that there is no valuation limit regarding suits that could be so transferred prescribed by Sub-clause 4, Section 24. He drew my attention to the cases reported in Sankararama v. Padmanabha [1912] 38 Mad. 25, Chhotey Lal v. Lakhmi Chand [1916] 38 All. 425, and Sukha v. Raghunath Das [1917] 39 All. 214. On the other hand, Mr. P. Satyanarayana Rao contended that the small cause jurisdiction of the District Munsif of Ranipet being less than the value of the suit at Bezwada, the District Munsif has no jurisdiction to try the Bezwada suit as a small cause suit. He referred to Clause 1 (b) (ii), Section 24, Civil P.C., which lays down that the Court to which a suit is transferred should be competent to try that suit.

5. Turning to the decisions quoted by Mr. Desikan, I find that the decision in Sankararama v. Padmanabha [1912] 38 Mad. 25 is not a decision on the point I am now considering. There the District Judge of Tinnevelly transferred a small cause suit pending before the Subordinate Judge of Tuticorin to the District Munsif of Srivaikuntam to be tried as an original suit. The suit was again transferred to the file of the Additional District Munsif of Tinnevelly, who tried it as an original suit and whose decision was on appeal reversed by the appellate Court. The question before the High Court was whether an appeal lay against the decision of the Additional District Munsif of Tinnevelly. The learned Judges of the High Court hold, having regard to Clause 4, Section 24, the Additional District Munsif should be deemed to have tried the suit as a small cause suit and that the directions issued by the District Judge to have it tried as an original suit are ildlegal and issued without jurisdiction. The High Court accordingly held that the said directions should be disregarded as not being warranted by Section 24, and that it must be taken that the suit was tried by the District Munsif as a small cause suit. No question was raised before the High Court whether the said suit could have been transferred to the District Munsif at all because he had no jurisdiction to try such a suit on account of the valuation of the suit. From the report it does not appear that any objection on the score of valuation was raised and pressed before the High Court. It is no doubt true that at p 27 of the report in the judgment of Sundara Ayyar, J., the following sentence occurs:

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.

6. It does not appear, however, whether the Additional District Munsif of Tinnovelly who ultimately tried the suit had such jurisdiction. In any event this question of want of jurisdiction on the score of valuation, was not made a ground of attack before the High Court and the High Court judgment does not deal with such an objection; so that I am not able to derive any help from that decision. 'The next case relied on is that reported in Chhotey Lal v. Lakhmi Chand. That was a decision of a Single Judge, Sir P.C. Banerji, J., from the facts set out at p. 426 it appears that a suit for Its. 422 filed as a small cause suit in the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Muttra, whose small cause jurisdiction extended up to Rs. 500, was transferred by order of the District Judge to the District Munsif of Muttra whose small cau9e jurisdiction extended only up to the limit of Rs. 50. An ex-parte decree was passed by the Munsif. The defendant applied to have the ex parte decree set aside, and the question arose whether he ought to have deposited the decree amount or given security for the same, under Section 17, Prov. Sm. C. C. Act, at the time of presenting the application. The Munsif having held that - the section did not apply, and having granted the defendant's application, and having set aside the ex parte decree, the plaintiff filed a revision petition. The learned Judge stated the question for decision as follows:

The real question in this case is whether Section 17, Small Cause Courts Act, applies to the present case.

7. No objection was raised on the ground that the District Munsif had no jurisdiction to try the suit having regard to its valuation. The Court relied on Clause 4, Section 24 and held that the decision of the District Munsif should be taken to have been pissed by a Court of Small Causes and that the provisions Section 17, Small Cause Courts Act, applied. The next case relied on is the one reported in Sukha v. Raghunath Das. There, the District Judge transferred a small cause suit pending in the Subordinate Judge's Court of Muttra; the District Munsif to whose Court the case was transferred was not invested with the powers of a Small Cause Court Judge. He, however, tried the case as a Small Cause Court Judge and decreed the claim in plaintiff's favour. The defendant's appeal was dismissed by the lower appellate Court on the ground that no appeal lay. The defendant filed a revision petition before the High Court, and the only point argued before the High Court was whether an appeal lay or not. The High Court held that having regard to Section 24, Clause 4, Civil P.C. the District Munsif should be taken to have decided the suit as a Court of Small Causes and that no appeal lay against his decree. The question whether a Small cause suit could be transferred to a Court which was not either a Court of Small Causes, or one invested with jurisdiction of a Court of Small Causes, does not seem to have been argued or decided by the High Court in that case. No doubt there is an observation at p 221 of the report:

The legislature apparently intended that the District Court would 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.

8. If the learned Judge meant by the above observation that a small cause suit could be transferred by a District Court to the file of a Munsif's Court which was not a Small Cause Court and which was not invested with small cause jurisdiction, it seems to me with all respect that the proposition is unsustainable. The same remarks apply to the decision of Lindsay, J., reported in Ram Charan Banwari Lal v. Kishori Lal Sarup A.I.R 1929 All.50. The only question raised was whether an appeal lay. The decision in In Re: Bagiammal [1917] 32 M.L.J. 258 seems to be relevant. A suit pending on the file of the Court of the Small Causes, Madras, was transferred by a Bench of two learned Judges of the High Court by order passed under Section 24, Clause 4, Civil P.C. on C. M. P. 2446 of 1916, to the City Civil Court to be tried with original suit No. 277 of 1916 pending in the City Civil Court. The correctness of the order being doubted, having regard to the provisions of Section 24 (L) (b) (ii), the Chief Justice was moved by C. M. P. 334 of 1917 to regularize the proceedings by passing order under Section 5 (2), City Civil Court Act. The learned Chief Justice (Sir John Wallis Kt.) in passing orders under Section 5 (2), City Civil Courts Act and directing the transfer, observed as follows:

Section 24, Civil P.C., only authorises transfer to a Court competent to try the case, The City Civil Court is not such a Court (Section 3, City Civil Court Act) and do not think that Section 24, Clause 4, Civil P.C. makes it so. It can only become so by the Chief Justice of the High Court authorizing the City Civil Judge to try the case in his capacity of Small Cause Court Judge under Section 5 (2), City Civil Courts Act. I so direct him.

9. In Manikka Chettiar v. Kuppuswamy Naicker A.I.R. 1927 Mad. 321, the present learned Chief Justice remarks at p 118 as follows:

I can only transfer them to a Court which has jurisdiction to try them.

10. Under Section 24 (1) (b) (ii), Civil P.C., the Court to which a suit is transferred should be competent to try or dispose of the same. "Competency" clearly means:

with reference to the nature and the amount or value of the subject matter of the suit.

11. In fact these last words occurred in the previous Code of 1882, Section 25, and have been omitted from section 24, of the present code evidently as unnecessary since the presence of the word " competent " in Clause 1 (b) (ii) of the section clearly implies the same. A Court may not be competent to try small cause suit either because of the valuation of the suit or because it had no small cause jurisdiction at all. I cannot agree with the contention that an order of transfer passed under Sub-clause 4, Section 24, Civil P.C. could invest a Court not having small cause jurisdiction with one; nor could such order enable a Judge having small cause jurisdiction up to a particular limit to try as a small cause suit a suit exceeding that limit. Otherwise a District Court could in this Presidency at present transfer a small cause suit, of the value of say Rs 1,000 pending before a Subordinate Judge to be tried by a District Munsif as a small cause suit, though the jurisdiction of District Munsif is limited under notification issued by the Local Government under the provisions of Small Cause Court Act and the Madras City Civil Courts Act, to the trial of small cause suits not exceeding Rs. 300 in value. Similarly, a Judge of the High Court could transfer a suit of the value of Rs. 2,000 from the file of the Presidency Small Cause Court to a District Munsif to be tried as a small cause suit. But as already mentioned it is only the Local Government that has the jurisdiction under Section 15, Provincial Small Cause Courts Act to invest particular Courts of Small Causes with jurisdiction up to Rs. 1,000; and under Section 28, Madras Civil Courts Act, it is only the High Court (and not one Judge thereof) that has got jurisdiction by notification in the Official Gazette to invest District Munsifs with small cause jurisdiction, and that only up to the amount of Rs. 300. It therefore seems rather curious that District Court or a Division Bench of the High Court should have power to direct District Munsifs to try suits of the value of Rs. 1,000 and 2,000 respectively as small cause suits. It should not be forgotten that no appeals lie against the decree passed in such suits. The above considerations were pressing upon me when the question was argued before me. In none of the cases quoted before me has this question of competency been expressly raised and decided. If the case in Sankararama v. Padmanabha, had decided this question, I should of course be bound by the same. But for reasons already mentioned by me, this question was not raised in that case, much less decided by She learned Judges. I accordingly took time to consider my judgment in this case, and in the meantime asked the office to find out whether any similar cases had arisen for decision after the ruling reported in 38 Mad. 25. I am obliged to the office for having brought to my notice the following case which I think helps me in the decision of the point.

12. In C. M. P. 151 of 1917, the High Court was moved by the defendants in Small Cause Suit No. 16,870 of 1916 on the file of the Court of Small Causes Madras, to transfer the said suit to the Principal District Munsif's Court of Bapatla to be tried along with Original Suit No. 722 of 1916 on the file of that District Munsif. As generally happens in such cases, the subject matter of the two suits was practically the same, and the evidence in both the suits was practically the same. The High Court, Old-field and Bakewell, JJ., by order dated 5th February 1917 ordered the transfer as prayed for. It was subsequently found out that the value of small cause suit was Rs. 1,627-4-6 and an application for review was filed immediately by the plaintiff in the Presidency Small Cause Court suit on the ground of valuation of the suit and the consequent incompetency of the Munsif to try the said suit. The learned Judges reviewed the prior order, and on 16th February 1917 passed the following order:

As the fact that the respondent's case could not ordinarily be disposed of by the District Munsif sitting as a Small Cause Court, was overlooked, we allowed the review petition. Proceeding at once with the consent of the parties to our hearing of the application for transfer, we hold that it should not be granted in the circumstances and dismiss it. No orders as to costs.

13. This clearly is a decision by two learn-e Judges of the High Court on the exact point now before me. Though the learned Judges have not elaborated the reasons for their opinion, it is clear that the considerations set out by me above receive support from the order passed by the learned Judges. The question raised before me relates to an important matter of practice of frequent occurrence and there should be no doubt on such a matter of practice. Having regard to the decision of the two learned Judges-mentioned above, and the other considerations mentioned by me already, I have come to the conclusion that the small cause suit now pending before the Subordinate Judge of Bezwada should not be transferred to be tried by the District Munsif of Ranipet. These considerations-have not been considered in the decision of the Calcutta High Court reported in Madhu Sudan Gope v. Behari Lall Gope [1918] 27 C.L.J. 461. The Court there refers only to Section 24 (4) and not to the provisions of Section 24 (1) (b) (ii) relating to the competency of the Court to which the suit is transferred. In any event I should" not prefer the same to the decision of this Court mentioned above. Coming to the petition No 4,401 of 1928 filed by Venkatakesavulu Chetty, the plaintiff in the Bezwada suit, I note that the suit in. Ranipet was filed first; and it was open to Venkatakesavulu Chetty to have filed either a separate suit in the Ranipet Court, within whose jurisdiction Murugesa Mudaliar was living, claiming the amount due to him according to his version. He might also, for what appears, have filed a counter claim in respect of his demand.

14. It is not clear to me that the effect of transferring suit No. 58/28 to the file of the Subordinate Judge would really lead to a satisfactory solution of conflict of decisions; for if the decision of the Subordinate Judge passed on the transferred suit be open to appeal, then the findings passed on such an appeal need not necessarily be the same as the findings arrived at by the Subordinate Judge in the two suits. Should however, it be held that no appeal lies from the decision of the Subordinate Judge on the transferred suit : see Uma Charan Sen Gupta v. Chinta Roy [1916] 36 I.C. 881, then in the circumstances of this case it seems to be really unjust that the plaintiff in the Ranipet Court who filed the suit for the larger amount and that long before the other side filed the small cause, suit in the Bezwada Subordinate Judge's Court, should have to forgo the right of appeal from any decision that might be passed by the Ranipet Court; in the circumstances of this case I do not feel justified in bringing about such a result. I therefore dismiss Venkatakesavulu Chatty's application No. 4,401 of 1928.

15. One of the prayers in C. M. P. 4,205 of 1928 filed by the plaintiff in the. Ranipet suit is that the proceedings in small cause Suit 210 of 1928 on the file of the Subordinate Judge of Bezwada may be stayed pending disposal of the Ranipet suit. In the circumstances I think that is a prayer that I should grant. I accordingly direct that the proceedings in small cause Suit No. 210 of 1928 on the -file of the Subordinate Judge of Bezwada be stayed pending disposal of Suit No. 58 of 1928 on the file of the Court of the District Munsif of Ranipet. The question whether the stay of Suit 210 of 1928 should be continued in case of an appeal against the decision of the Ranipet Court will have to be considered, if necessary, later on, having regard to the circumstances then existing. I make no order as to costs in any of these petitions.

Murugesa Mudaliar v. Davva Venkata Keasavlu Chetty

Structured Summary of the Provided Legal Opinion

Factual and Procedural Background

Legal Issues Presented

Arguments of the Parties

Appellant / Murugesa Mudaliar (represented by Mr. K. S. Desikan)

Respondent / Venkatakesavulu Chetty (represented by Mr. P. Satyanarayana Rao)

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

Holding and Implications

Murugesa Mudaliar v. Davva Venkata Keasavlu Chetty

Comments