Small Cause Court Should Return Plaint Where Bona Fide Title Dispute Can't Be Summarily Decided: Allahabad High Court

Referring to Section 23 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, 1887, Dr. Justice Yogendra Kumar Srivastava held,

“While Section 23 is couched in discretionary terms and does not render return of the plaint mandatory in every case, such discretion must be exercised judiciously and upon sound principles. Where the dispute of title is bona fide, substantial and incapable of summary adjudication, it would be a proper and prudent exercise of jurisdiction for the Court of Small Causes to return the plaint for presentation before the competent civil court rather than proceed to determine the controversy within the confines of its limited summary jurisdiction.”

Section 23 of Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, 1887 provides that where questions of proving the title of the plaintiff over the immovable property are involved, the Court can return the plaint at any stage of the proceedings to be presented to a Court having jurisdiction to determine the title.

Plaintiff-revisionist entered into a lease deed for the property which was already tenanted by the opposite party. Once the tenant committed default in payment of rent, the landlord sent him eviction notices. Since the tenant did not vacate the premises, the landlord filed a suit for eviction before the Small Causes Court.

The tenant denied landlord-tenant relationship between the parties. The Court dismissed the suit holding that the plaintiff had failed to establish landlord-tenant relationship and issues regarding the title of the property were substantial. Instead of returning the plaint under Section 23 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, 1887, the Court dismissed the suit.

This order was challenged by the plaintiff-revisionist before the High Court.

The Court observed that Section 23 provided limitations on the summary jurisdiction of the Small Causes Court, thereby differentiating between the summary jurisdiction of the Small Causes Court and the plenary jurisdiction of the Civil Courts.

“A careful reading of the provision shows that though it employs the expression “may”, return of plaint is not to be understood as an unguided discretion. The discretion conferred is judicial in nature and has to be exercised upon examination of the real controversy between the parties. Only where the plaintiff's right to relief is substantially dependent upon proof or disproof of title incapable of final determination by the Small Cause Court does the occasion arise for invoking Section 23.”

It held that for deciding rent and eviction cases, the absolute title of ownership is not to be decided, therefore, to a limited extent the Small Causes Court does decide the issue of title. It further held that a tenant-defendant cannot be allowed to frustrate the purpose of summary proceedings by merely raising superficial titular disputes.

“A mere plea of title raised by the defendant does not, by itself, oust the jurisdiction of the Court of Small Causes, which may proceed where such plea is unsubstantial or lacking bona fides. However, where the dispute of title is real, substantial, supported by material on record, and goes to the root of the landlord–tenant relationship, the Court must examine whether the controversy can be satisfactorily decided within the limits of its summary jurisdiction. If adjudication of the plaintiff's right and relief necessarily depends upon determination of a substantial and intricate question of title, the proper and judicious course would be to return the plaint for presentation before the competent civil court.”

The Court observed that Small Causes Courts are meant to deal with relatively simple issues whereas the issues involving rights of parties are to be decided by regular Civil Courts as they may involve intricate and substantial questions.

It held that once the Small Causes Courts reaches the conclusion that substantial questions of title are involved, then it must return the plaint. It held that Section 23 does not provide for dismissal of the plaint.

Accordingly, the Court set aside the dismissal and directed the Small Causes Court to return the plaint to the plaintiff as it had specifically recorded that substantial question of title has been raised by the parties.

Case Title: Suresh Shah Sisodiya v. Jai Prakash Yadav