AREALI VEEMAN Vs. TSSUBBAROYAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE revision petitions are against the decrees of the Small Cause Court of Karur in a number of suit brought to recover various sums as rent. They were tried together by consent of parties and the judgment in 1316 of 1917 deals with all the cases. Various objections were raised before us, the only one of real sub as being that the Small Cause Court had no jurisdiction to try the suits. They were ay originally filed in the Small Cause Court The defendant applied for and got an order under season 23 of the Small Cause Courts Act (IX of 1837) returning the plaints to be presented to the proper Court having jurisdiction to try the question of title. They were so presented to the Munsif and when taken up for hearing, the parties agreed that there was no question of title that need be tried and wished the suits to be disposed of by the Small Cause Court. This was done, and they were tried and disposed of, on the merits. It is now objected (hat there was no jurisdiction in the Small Cause Court to try the suit, as the order under Section 23 had not been set aside. We think, however, that this is not an objection which we should allow the defendants to take in a revision petition for the first time. We think that the fasts of these cases do not bring them within the doctrine that consent cannot give jurisdiction, where there is an absence of inherent jurisdiction in the Court trying the case. Vide Ledgard v. Bull 9 A. 191 (P.C.) : 13 I.A. 134 : 4 Sar. P.C.J. 741 : 5 Ind. Dec. (N.S.) 561 and Minakshi v. Subramanya Sastri 11 M. 26 at P. 35 (P.C.) : 14 I.A. 160 : 5 Sar. P.C.J. 54 : 11 Ind. Jur. 393 : 4 Ind. Dec. (N.S.) where the distention are explained by the Privy Council. We, therefore, overrule these objections. A question of limitation was raised as to some of the suits. It is not clear on the record that they are beyond time; for it is not shown that there was any delay between The return of the plainis by the original Court and their being re-presented in the Small Cause Court. Os the merits, it is urged that there ii no valii contract to pay the increased rent of Rs. 1-4-0 par acre. The agreement has been found by the Munsif and no point was raised before him, that consideration was wanting. We cannot allow it to be raised here. There was also evidence on which tin, Munsif could find that the agreement was not for a limited period only and the reason for the addition of two annar, viz., the revenue increase, certainly supports the Munsif s view. This objection also fails.

(2.) THE farther objection has been raised in eleven suits in which grain rents have been decreed. Whether rent was payable in kind or money was a question of fact, carefully considered by the Munaif; and we see no reason why we should interfere with his decision on this point. In the result, all the petitions are demised with costs. Vakil s fee in each case will be Rs. 7-8-0.