Arthur Wilson, J.
1. This was a rule granted under Section 622 of the Code ofCivil Procedure to show cause why a decision of the Calcutta Court of SmallCauses should not be set aside. The only ground on which it is contended thatit should be set aside is the ground of want of jurisdiction. The proceedingsshow that the suit was a mere suit for trespass, based on the plaintiffspossession. The defence was a denial of possession; no question of title wasraised, and I am asked to hold that the Small Cause Court has no jurisdiction.No doubt before the present Act the Court had this jurisdiction; but I cannotthink that jurisdiction is taken away by the new Act; all that is taken away isby Section 19, but this is not a suit for recovery of Immovable property, nor asuit for determination of any other right to, or interest in, Immovableproperty. No question of title is raised or determined.
2. I think the rule must be discharged with costs.
.
Peary Mohn Ghosaulvs. Harran Chunder Gangooly(02.03.1885 - CALHC)
Peary Mohn Ghosaul v. Harran Chunder Gangooly
Peary Mohn Ghosaul v. Harran Chunder Gangooly
(High Court Of Judicature At Calcutta)
| 02-03-1885
Advocate List
Bench
- Arthur Wilson, J.
Eq Citations
- (1885) ILR 11 CAL 261
- LQ/CalHC/1885/29
Head Note
Small Causes Courts — Jurisdiction — Suit for trespass — Held, no question of title was raised or determined — Hence, Small Causes Court had jurisdiction to entertain the suit
