Gopal Chunder Dutt, I. L. R., 6 Cal., 49. And this Explanation would not make a judgment against one co-sharer in a property binding on the others-Hazir Gazi vs. Sonamonee Dassee, I. L. R., 6 Cal., 31; Kristinaji vs. Sitaram, I. L. R., 5 Bom., 496; but this section seems not restricted by section 30, post, so a decree against a Karnavan of a Malabar tarwad is binding upon all the members, though not parties, in the absence of fraud or collusion-Varankot Narayanan Namburi vs. Namburi, I. L. R., 2 Mad., 328. Where A sued B for a parcel of land, and obtained a decree, and subsequently C and D, nephews of B, sued A and B for their shares alleging collusion in the previous suit, and it was found that B and C and D lived together as members of an undivided Hindu family; Held, as collusion was not proved, nor minority during the previous suit asserted, that C and D were fully represented by their kurta B in the previous suit, and that decision was conclusive-Narayan Gop Habbu vs. Pandurang, I. L. R., 5 Bom., 685. See also Jogendro Deb Roy Kut vs. Funendro, 14 Moore, 376.

14. No foreign judgment shall operate as a bar to a suit in British India

When foreign judgment no bar to suit in British India.

(a) if it has not been given on the merits of the case: (b) if it appears on the face of the proceedings to be founded on an incorrect view of international law or of any law in force in British India :

(c) if it is in the opinion of the Court before which it is produced contrary to natural justice :

(d) if it has been obtained by fraud:

(e) if it sustains a claim founded on a breach of any law in force in British India.

This section applies to H. C. and M. S. C. C.

The judgment of a foreign Court obtained on a decree in British India, is no bar to excution of the original decree-Fakuruddeen Mahomed vs. The Official Trustee, I. L. R., 7 Cal., 82.

The mere fact that a suit is pending in a foreign Court at the time the suit is instituted in this country is no bar-The Delta, 1 P. D., 393; Seal vs. Chatterjee, 1 Taylor, 418. A foreign judgment on matters of form only will not bar a suit in this country on the merits-The Delta, 1 P. D., 393; nor will an ex parte decree against a native of British India, on a cause of action arising in British India-Hinde vs. Ponnath Brayun, I. L. R., 4 Mad., 359. An action cannot be maintained on the decree of a foreign Court against the drawer of a bill neither domiciled resident, nor possessing property in the foreign State, who is found to have casually resorted thither and drawn the bill for a sum found due to his creditor-Mathappi Chetti vs. Chillappa Chetti, I.L. R., 1 Mad., 196.

:

The rule in Story is that foreign judgments, in order to be binding, must have finally determined the matters in dispute, and must be an adjudication upon the actual merits they may be impeached on the ground that the foreign Courts had no jurisdiction, whether over the cause, over the subject matter, or over the parties, or that the defendant never was summoned to answer or had an opportunity of making his defence, or that the judgment was fraudulently obtained. This was adopted by the Calcutta High CourtSreehuree Bukshee vs. Gopal Chunder Samunt, 15 W. R., 500; Bolaram Gooy vs. Kameenee Dossee, 4 W. R., 108. A suit was brought against the defendants in the French Court at Mahe, and they made no objection to the jurisdiction of the Court, but appeared and defended the suit, which was decreed against them. In suit upon the decree of the French Court the defendants pleaded that it had been passed without jurisdiction as they had always lived in British Territory: Held, by the Madras High Court, that the defendants having taken the chance of a judgment in their favour, which would, if obtained, have relieved them from all liability, they were equitably estopped from afterwards pleading want of jurisdiction-Kandoth Mammi vs. Neelancherayil Abdu Kalandan, 8 Mad., 14. See also Khandasami Pillai vs. Moidin Saheb, I. L. R., 2 Mad., 337. But if a party, sued in a foreign Court not having jurisdiction, protest against the jurisdiction, he does not voluntarily submit, although he may have appealed from the decision of the first Court without repeating his objection, and the judgment cannot be sued upon in British India-Parry & Co. vs. Pillai, I. L. R., 2 Mad., 407.

No suit is maintainable founded upon the judgment of a Court of a native state. Such judgment can only be enforced as provided by section 434 of the Code of Civil ProcedureBhavanishanker Shevakram vs. Pursadri Kalidas, I. L. R., 6 Bom., 292.

For the effect of contracts for the compounding of criminal offences against the law of a foreign country, see Subraya Pillai vs. Subraya Mudali (4 Mad., 14.) As to irregularity in procedure or limitation in a foreign country, see Nallatambi Mudaliar vs. Pillai, I. L. R., 2 Mad., 400.

(b) This is clearly not the law of England. See Goddard vs. Gray, L. R., 6 Q. B., 139.

CHAPTER II.

OF THE PLACE OF SUING.

15. Every suit shall be instituted in the Court of the lowest grade competent to try it.

Court in which suit to

be instituted.

This section applies to H. C. and M. S. C. C.

Court of the lowest grade competent.-By section 12 of the Letters Patent the High Court of Calcutta has not jurisdiction, where the "debt, damage, or value of the property sued for does not exceed 100 rupees," and it has been held that the bona fide nature of the claim and not the decree determines the jurisdiction. Thus, where a person sued bona fide to recover 843 rupees damages, in the High Court, and through defective proof failed to obtain a larger amount than 75 rupees, it was held that the High Court had jurisdiction-Sikhur Chund vs. Sooring Mull, 1 Hyde, 272; but a person cannot give a Court jurisdiction in such a case by adding on to his claim sums which he could not recover, was not entitled to, and which he added simply to give jurisdiction-Bonmally Nawn vs. T. Campbell, 19 W. R., 20; or sums which he did not claim in the suitMootoo vs. l'erapah Chetty, 17 W. R., 243. But the mere fact that a suit has been over valued does not deprive the Court in which the suit is brought of jurisdiction, if the overvaluation was bona fide, and had not the effect of altering the appellate jurisdiction-Rajendro Lall Gossami vs. Shama Churn, I. L. R., 5 Cal., 188.

It is the money value of the original suit that fixes the jurisdiction of the Courts throughout the subsequent litigation in its several stages, not the value of what has been left in dispute-Muthasami Pillai vs. Muthu Chidambara Chetti, 7 Mad., 356; Dooly Chund vs. Nirban Singh, 18 W. R., 262. Thus where a person sought to recover one instalment of a bond conditioned for the payment of Rs. 500 per month, and secured by a penalty of Rs. 50,000, the suit was held to be within the jurisdiction of the Small Cause Court of Calcutta-Smith vs. Sims, Gaspar 145; and a Munsif has jurisdiction in a suit for money not exceeding Rs. 1,000 charged on land, although the value of the land is greater, such land lying within the local Courts of his jurisdiction-Janki Das vs. Badri Nath, I. L. R., 2 Alla., 698.

Valuation of Suit.-By sections 19 and 20, Act VI, 1871, the jurisdiction of District Judges and Subordinate Judges extends, subject to Act VIII. of 1859, Section 6, (corresponding to the present section), to all original suits, that of Munsifs to all such suits in which the subject-matter in dispute does not exceed one thousand rupees; and by section 22 an appeal lies to the District Judge where the amount or value of the subject-matter in dispute (in the original suit-Nogendro Chunder Mitter vs. Kishen Soondery Dossee, 19 W. R., 133, 137-8) does not excceed Rs. 5,000. The valuation of a suit for the purposes of stamp duty, and the valuation of the subject-matter of the suit for the purpose of determining the jurisdiction of the Court are two different things. Thus an appeal to a District Judge against a decree in a suit for property of the value of more than Rs. 5,000 will be set aside in special appeal, though the valuation for the purpose of stamp duty may have been less than Rs. 5,000, and though the first appeal may have been heard by consent of the partiesAukhil Chunder Sen vs. Mohini Mohun Dass, 4 C. L. R., 491.

Over-value.-As regards over-value, this section refers to procedure only, and regulates the practice of the Courts, but does not deprive any Court of Jurisdiction which it may otherwise possess. Thus, where a Subordinate Judge entertained a suit contrary to this section, the High Court held that it was a mere irregularity which did not prejudice the appellant, and refused to enter on the question of valuation with a view to determine in what Court the suit should have been brought-Russick Chunder Mohunt vs. Ram Lall Shaha, 22 W. R., 301. So, where the first Appellate Court dismissed a suit on the ground that the subject-matter of the suit being less than a thousand rupees, the suit should have been brought in the Munsif's Court, and that the Subordinate Judge had acted without jurisdiction in trying it; the High Court decided, that, under Act VI, 871, section 19, the Subordidate Judge was empowered to try causes of any value, and although he should, if he had found the value of the subject of the suit to be under a thousand rupees, have sent it to the Munsif, still the fact that he tried it himself was no ground for error in special appealSufeeoollah Sircar vs. Begum Bibi, 25 W. R., 219. So it has been held that the fact of a suit decreed by a Subordinate Judge for less than a thousand rupees being cognizable by a

Munsif's Court was no ground for dismissing it; but the plaintiff should not be allowed more costs than if he had sued in the lower Court-Joy Kishen Doss vs. J. N. Turnbull, 24 W. R., 137; and see Masaoolah Khan vs. Ram Lall, I. L. R., 6 Cal., 6.

Under-Value.-But if a suit is under-valued and taken into the wrong Court it is otherwise-Russick Chunder Mohunt vs. Ram Lall Shaha, 22 W. R., 301; unless the objector is equitably estopped, or has delayed in raising the objection. Plaintiff applied before a Subordinate Judge to sue in forma pauperis, and was met by the plea of over-valuation; and the Subordinate Judge, holding that the suit was over-valued, declined to entertain it. Subsequently, he obtained a decree before the Munsif, and defendant appealing, raised the objection of valuation, and the suit was dismissed, as beyond the Munsif's competency to try; Held, this decision was wrong, that the defendant could not turn round and object to the jurisdiction of the Munsif, since it was on his opposition that the original application had been rejected-Bromo Moyee Dasias. vs. Anund Chunder Chatterjee, 22 W. R., 120. Plaintiff's suit was dismissed by a Munsif as above his jurisdiction. He appealed; the Court of Appeal, reversing the Munsif's decision, directed him to try, the suit; he did so and dismissed it, but on appeal plaintiff obtained a decree. In special appeal defendant again raised the question, but it was ruled that he was not entitled to do so. The Court held the objection as to jurisdiction cannot be taken at this stage of the case; the appellant had a right to come up here in special appeal from the order passed on the 14th of June, 1872... This question of jurisdiction has no bearing upon the merits, and simply refers to the form in which a suit should be brought”—Koylash Chunder Ghose vs. Shaik Asraf Ali, 22 W. R., 101. This decision goes a great length; defendant did not come into Court willingly, and plaintiff had no equity against him; he had a perfect right not to appeal till final decree, and the Munsif had, under Act VI, 1871, section 19, only jurisdiction up to one thousand rupees.

Small Cause Court.-When a Munsif is vested with powers up to fifty rupees under Act VI of 1871, and there is a Court of Small Causes, under Act XI, 1865, with jurisdiction extending to five hundred rupees, at the same place, a suit of the nature cognizable by Small Cause Courts, if not above fifty rupees in value, should be brought in the Munsif's Court-Dwarkanath Dutt vs. Bhathu Hawoldar, 22 W. R., 457. Compare Act VI. of 1871 with Act XI. of 1865, section 12. This does not apply to village Munsifs established in Madras under Regulation IV, 1816, section 5, to try suits not exceeding ten rupees, and in such cases the Munsifs and Small Cause Courts possess concurrent jurisdiction, and one does not exclude the other-Parasoorama Pillay vs. Coolla Ramasawmy, 5 Mad., 45. Court Closed.-By section 5, Limitation Act, 1877, if the period of limitation prescribed for any suit, appeal or application expires on a day when the Court is closed, the suit, appeal or application may be instituted, prosecuted or made on the day that the Court re-opens.

Jurisdiction of Small Cause Courts.-The nature of the relief sought, and not the nature of the defence, or evidence, determines the jurisdiction. A Small Cause Court has jurisdiction to try a suit to recover money which plaintiff had paid in order to save his tenure from sale by defendants (plaintiff alleging he had previously paid the rent)-Krishna Kishore Shaha vs. Bireshur Mozoomdar, I.L.R., 4 Cal., 595; 3 C.L.R. 177; or a suit for expenses incurred by a gomashtah over and above the amount of rents collected, though the nature of the defence may render it necessary to investigate the accounts of the mehalProsunno Chunder Roy vs. Sreenath Sremanee,7 W. R., 422; or for the balance of an account though it may be necessary to enquire into items beyond jurisdiction-Ewart & Co. vs. Haji Mahomed Sadik, 4 Bom., 133; or for an amount within its jurisdiction on a bond which is beyond it-Suke Monee Debia vs. Hurry Mohun Mookerjee, 6 W. R., Ref., 6; or for the balance of a debt beyond jurisdiction, where the debt has been reduced by payment to an amount within it-Boyle vs. Turner, Gaspar, 17; or where the defence renders it necessary to determine the amount paid under an assignment-Mohima Chunder Mookerjee vs. Ram Churn Roy, 6 W. R., Ref., 16; or for grain in the nature of rent which has fallen due, though the whole amount payable from first to last under the agreement would be in excess of its jurisdiction-Narasidavur vs. Madana Kaundan, 2 Mad., 440; Samam Tewari vs. Sakina Bibi, I. L. R., 3 Alla., 37; or for damages arising from the re-sale of goods, though the original contract was for a sum beyond jurisdictionW. Kappu Chetti vs. C. Chidambara Mudali, 3 Mad., 170; or for money on a mortgage bond-Doorhya Roy vs. Dulsingar Singh, 12 W. R., 367, though the plaint may contain a prayer for foreclosure and sale in default of payment-Khettro Mohan Chatterjee vs. Kesori Mohan Bose, 1 B. L. R., 27, unless the debt must be primarily enforced against real property -Atmaram B. Kagji vs. Sadashiv Mahajani, 2 Bom., 1; or for damages or an order to fill up an excavation, there being no ground for the latter kind of relief sought-Nund Coomar Banerjee vs. Ishan Chunder Banerjee, 10 W. R., 130; 1 B. L. R., 91; or for damages for breaking down a wall, when the defendant pleaded purchase and plaintiff replied that the sale was invalid as made by a Hindu widow without necessity-Shumbhoo Chunder Mullick vs. Pran Kisto Mullick, 13 W. R., 105.

In Madras a different rule prevails, and if it reasonably appear to the Judge that a bona fide question of right which is not within his jurisdiction has been fairly raised, he is bound to dismiss the suit-Ammallu Ammal vs. Subbu Vadiyar, 2 Mad., 184; but see Alagirisami Naiker vs. Inuasi Udayan, I. L. R., 3 Mad. 127. So in a suit for rent where the defendant set up that plaintiff's title to the land had passed to others since the creation of the tenancy, it was held that the suit should have been dismissed for want of jurisdiction-D. Venkata Chalam vs. Thimma Naikan, 5 Mad., 64.

A Small Cause Court can entertain a suit against municipal commissioners-Hurrish Chunder Taluputter vs. O'Brien, 14 W. R., 248; to recover damage on account of illegal removal of crops-Daur Sinha vs. Rugh Nundun Sinha, 3 Alla., 101; Ram Jebun Koyee vs. Shahasadee Begum, 9 W. R., 336; or money collected from an estate by parties under an obligation to pay it to the plaintiff-Bhugobutty Churn Bajpaye vs. Sharoda Pershad Sooku, 22 W. R., 298; or the value of a tree destroyed and fish taken out of a tank-Sujjad Ali vs. Bhola Ram, 5 Alla., 24; or damages for money paid under a fraudulent misrepresentation-Fatema Begum vs. Syed Moosa, 8 W. R., 128; or damages sustained in consequence of the decree-holder fraudulently omitting to certify to the Court payments made on a decree Bhugoban Tuntee vs. Gobind Chunder Roy, 9 W. R., 210; or the price paid as damages in consequence of a vendor failing to complete a little to land-Charoo Khan vs. Doorga Monee, 9 W. R., 498; or maintenance payable under a special contract-Paupamma vs. Venkata Reddy, 5 Mad., 432; Sidlingapa vs. Sidava, I. L. R.. 2 Bom., 624; Apaji Chintaman vs. Gangabai, I. L. R., 2 Bom., 632: or damages against a person refusing to quit the land or pay rent-Bhoobun Mohun Bose vs. Chunder Nath Banerjee, 17 W. R, 69 or damages for defamation of character, where actual loss has resulted-Gunga Narain Moytro vs. Gudadhur Chowdry, 13 W. R., 434; or damages under the Copyright Act (see Act XI. of 1865; Sec. 2, Act IX. of 1850)-Jadoonath Mullick vs. Jawarally, Gaspar 185 (but not since the passing of Act XII of 1876-Hameedoollah in re, I. L. K., 6 Cal., 499); or for the fruit upon trees or damages in lieu thereof-Nasir Khan vs. Karamat Khan, I. L. R., 3 Alla., 168; or for damages for malicious prosecution-Debi Singh vs. Hanuman Upadhya, I. L. R., 3 Alla., 747.

A person claiming damages for personal injury where actual pecuniary damage has resulted, has a right to join in the suit another part of the claim to damages which is not cognizable by a Small Cause Court-Mansing Lalung vs. Theram Doloye, 19 W. R., 395; Gunga Narayan Moytro vs. Gudhadhur Chowdhry, 13 W. R., 434.

A Small Cause Court can entertain a suit to recover a share of a boat-Mahomed Azan Bhuyah vs. Mahomed Somee, 21 W. R., 413; or moveable property of which the owner has been dispossessed by an attachment order-Janakeammal vs. Vithnadien, 5 Mad., 191; Radha Kishen vs. Chotey Lall, 3 Alla., 155; Shiboo Narain Singh vs. Mudden Ally, I. L. R., 7 Cal., 608; or thatch severed from a house-Raj Coomar Mookerjee vs. Prannath Mookerjee, 15 W. R., 499. If one of two sharers sells joint moveable property without the other's consent, the latter can sue the purchaser in a Small Cause Court for the price of his share-Radhanath Shaha vs. Kameenee Soonderee Dossee, 2 W. R., 37. It can take cognizance of a suit to recover an unaccounted for balance in the hands of an agentJooghul Kishore Roy vs. Rughoo Nath Seal, 20 W. R., 4; or money in the hands of a third person to which the plaintiff is entitled-Sunkur Lall Pattuck Gyawul vs. Mussamut Ram Kally Dhamin, 18 W. R., 104; Lasmonee Debia vs. Mahomed Haferzulla, 3 B. L. R., App., 96; or money paid to be applied in satisfaction of a decree and not so applied by the decreeholder-Tarinee Churn Roy vs. Gopal Kishto Roy 2 W. R., Ref., 5; or money paid in excess of the proper share-Joynarain Manger vs. Muddoo Soodun Goraet, 2 W. R.. 134 (but see the case of Ram Bux vs. Moodhoo Soodon Pal Chowdhry, 7 W. R., 377); or mesne profitsKakaji Sakharam vs. Govind Ganesh, 8 Bom., 96; or to file an award-Bridge vs. Edalji Mancharji, 10 Bom., 54; Elam Puramanick vs. Sefaetullah Sheikh, 10 W. R., 85; or for wages against a European British subject.-Mirza Rumzan Beg vs. Cook, 14 W. R., 428.) One joint decree-holder may sue the other in a Small Cause Court for his share of the execution sale proceeds-Mata Prasad vs. Isauri, I. L. R. 3 Alla., 59; but not if the suit would involve questions of partnership account-Ramtonu Acharjee vs. Peary Mohun Acharjee, I. L. R., 6 Cal., 551.

A Small Cause Court cannot entertain a suit for salvage, though the property saved has been abandoned by those who had charge of it-Kishore Singh vs. Gunnesh Mookerjee, 9 W. R., 252; nor to establish a judgment-debtor's title in moveable property and have it soldShiboo Narain Singh vs. Mudden Ally, I. L. R., 7 Cal., 608; Balmokund vs. Lekraj, 3 Alla., 156; Ram Dhun Biswas vs. Kefal Biswas, 10 W. R., 141; Radha Kishen vs. Chotey Lall, 3 Alla., 155; Moossden Gazee vs. Dinobundho Gossamee, 13 W, R., 99; Jethabhai Bhai Chand vs. Bai Lakhu, 6 Bom, 27; (but a suit will lie to establish plaintiff's right in moveables attached in execution against a third party-Jankiammal vs. Vithnadien, 5 Mad., 191); nor to recover money due on a bond, and a declaration of plaintiff's lien on the mortgaged proporty-Ram Narayan Mookerjee vs. Srimati Saroda Debi, 6 B. L. R., App., 39; nor to ascertain what is due on a mortgage and to make the property available for realizing the amount-Ram Gopal Shah vs. Ram Gopal Shah, 9 W. R., 136-(otherwise in Madras-Appahu Pillai vs. Subraya Muppeen, 2 Mad., 474); nor to recover possession of mortgaged moveables on paying the amount ascertained to be due-Bhubotarinee Ghosany vs. Jaggernath Tewary, 16 W. R., 58; nor to declare a person's title as heir and give consequential relief-Kola Aheer vs. Mussamut Lajna Aheimur, 3 Alla., 105; nor to obtain property as a share of an intestacy-Grish Chunder Singh vs. Auna Dossee, 17 W. R., 46; Nobin Chunder Gossamee vs. Dribo Moyee Debee, id., 520; nor to recover a tree unsevered-Shanthi Lakshmin Arasamma vs. Vepa Venkatramadas, 3 Mad., 237; nor standing huts purchased under a decree-Rohiny Kunt Ghose vs. Mahabharut Nag, 10 W. R., 258; nor a suit for damages recoverable under section 98, Act VIII, 1869 (B. Č.)— Meer Hyder Ali vs. Shaikh Jafar Ali, 24 W. R., 222; nor to recover money paid to prevent plaintiff's land being sold for arrears of rent, plaintiff asserting none were dueShaunkara Subbien vs. Vallayan Chetty, 5 Mad., 179; nor for damages arising out of acts done under colour of exercising the power to distrain under the rent laws-Joyloll Sheikh vs.

Brijonath Paul Chowdhry, 9 W. R., 162; nor for defamation of character not resulting in any pecuniary loss-Bhyrub Chunder Chuckerbutty vs. Mohendro Chuckerbutty, 13 W. R., 118, or where the pecuniary loss is not pleaded-Rajchunder Chuckerbutty vs. Punchanun Surmah Chowdry, 4 W. R., 7; nor for damages for false complaint-Prankristo Banerjee vs. Nuddear Chand Chatterjee, 10 W. R., 115, except when special pecuniary loss has resulted from it-Sitaraman vs. Susa Pillai, Mad., 254; Durga Pershad vs. Asa Tolaha, I. L. R., 5 Cal., 925; nor an action against a military officer in a military cantonment when there is a Court of Requests-Aboo Sail vs. Arnott, 2 Mad., 439, though the fact of being a soldier is no bar to an action-Marwady Beja Rajoo vs. Haynes, 6 Mad., 83; nor a suit for contribution-Ram Bax vs. Modhoo Soodhun Paul Chowdry, 7 W. R., 377; Modhoo Soodhun Mozoomdar vs. Bindoo Basheni, 6 W. R., Ref., 15; Bromopoor Goswamee vs. Pran Nath Chowdhry, 7; W. R., 17; Ramtonu vs. Peary Mohun, I. L. R., 6 Cal., 551; Nobin Krishna Chakravati vs. Ram Kumar Chakravati, I.L. R., 7 Cal., 605; nor to recover money paid under an order of Court-Grish Chunder Mundul vs. Doorga Dass, I. L. R., 5 Cal., 494; nor to recover money paid in mistake by A in liquidation of a debt due by BItche Moyee Dossee vs. Bama Soonduree Dossee,25 W. R., 73 (otherwise in Madras-Govinda Muneya Tiruyan vs. Bapu, 5 Mad., 200; Parasurama vs. Krist Nayan, 5 Mad, 462); nor for maintenance by a Hindu widow-Mussamut Hema Kooeree vs. Ajoodhya Pershad, 24 W. R., 474; Nobin Kali Debea vs. Bindoobashiny Debea, 5 W. R., Ref., (unless the obligation to pay the maintenance arises under a special contract-Sidlingapa vs. Sidava, I. L. R., 2 Bom., 624, which special contract should be alleged in the plaint-Apaji Chintaman vs. Gangabai, I. L. R.; 2 Bom., 632); nor a suit for maintenance on an awardDurjan Singh vs. Mussamut Sibia, 7 Alla.,329, Mussamut Guneshee vs. Chotay Lal, 3 Alla., 117, or fixed by a decree of Court-Pahlud Singh vs. Ahlud Sing, 6 Alla., 91; Kaminee Dossee vs. Chunder Bishonath Shaha, 9 W. R. 214; Nobin Kalee Debea vs. Bindoobashenee Debea, 5 W. R., Ref., 5; Kameenee Dossee vs. Bishonath Shaha, 9. W. R.,214; but see Bugwan Chunder Bose vs. Binodo Bashinee Dossee, 6 W. R., 286; nor a suit by príncipal against his agent for adjustment of account-Krishna Kinker Roy vs. Madhub Chunder Chuckerbutty, 21 W. R., 283; nor for specific performance of a contract-Nilkanth Surmah vs. Bishen Bashee, 6 W. R., 322; nor to declare that a bond has been satisfied and is inoperative-Agur Mullick Mundul vs. Debnath Chatterjee, 24 W. R., 190; nor to recover the unsatisfied balance of a decree of such Court-Sandes vs. Jomir Shaikh, 9 W. R., 399; nor to set aside a decree of Court as illegal and collusive-Bama Soonduree Debee vs. Kaminee Bewa, 10 W. R., 352; nor is a suit to obtain an order from the Court that a decree upon a mortgage of a certain house should be enforced against the person and property of the defendant who had purchased the house at auction subject to plaintiff's mortgage, but had subsequently removed the materials of the same, and so deprived the plaintiff of his lien thereon, cognizable by a Court of Small Causes-Omer Kurim vs. Shewan Lall, 4 C. L. R., 291.

Small Cause Court-Rent Suits.-A Small Cause Court has jurisdiction in a suit for the rent of land where the principal subject of the entire occupation is bastoo land, the residue (if any) being merely subordinate; but it is otherwise if the principal subject of the entire occupation is agricultural land, and the buildings are mere accessories-Mussamut Ranee Chundessuree vs. Gheenah Pundey, 24 W. R., 152; Gokul Chund Chatterjee vs. Mosahroo Kandoo, 21 W. R., 5; Pearee Bewa vs. Nokoor Kurmokur, 19 W. R., 308; also in a suit for money for the use of land-Wooma Pershad Shaw vs. Shumsher, 4 W. R., Ref., 10 Brice vs. Toogood, 5 W. R., Ref., 18; Buchoo Chowbey vs. Ghoorlait, 4 Alla., 56; on a kistbundee given for arrears of rent-Rajah Shutt Churn Ghosal vs. Gopal Kisto Roy, 2 W. R., Ref., 5; on an agreement to let out trees and appropriate their produce-Deb Nath Ghose vs. Pachoo Mollah, 6 W. R., Ref., 8; for dak expenses according to a patni leaseDheraj Mahtab Chand vs. Radha Benode Chowdhry, 8 W. R., 517; Erskine vs. Trilochun Chatterjee, 9 W. R., 518; on an agreement to hold land for a term in connection with money lent, to realise the rents, take credit for interest, and pay the excess to plaintiffNobinchunder Vodro vs. Kedar Nath Chuckerbutty, 16 W.R., 228; or against a cultivator when the cultivator is a servant and not a ryot-Sree Nath Dutt vs. Dwarry Dhallie, 2 W. R., Ref., 2; but not to entertain suits to enhance the rent of bastoo land which must be instituted in the ordinary Courts-Ranee Doorga Soonduree Dassee vs. Bibi Oomdutoonissa, 18 W. R., 234; Joy Kishore Chowdrain vs. Nubee Buksh, 17 W. R., 178; nor to recover the amount of a trade impost claimed from all the members of a certain tradeJagherdar of Arnee vs. Perriyanna Mudely, 5 Mad., 317; not to recover arrears of choukedari cess entered in a wajib-al-arz-Kasim Ali vs. Shadee, 3 Alla., 21; nor to decide the title to land, where plaintiff fails to prove an agreement to pay rent-Khudeeram Biswas vs. Koral Budoonee Dossee, 21 W. R., 379.

North-West-Under Act XVIII, 1873, a suit for possession of a holding, by a tenant against his landlord, should be instituted in the Revenue Courts-Muazzim Ali Khan vs. Sheo Pershad, 7 Alla., 259; and in a suit to eject a tenant holding over, the Civil Courts will not have jurisdiction even if the suit for ejectment is combined with a claim for mesne profits-Ram Autar Rai vs. Mussamut Talimundi, 7 Alla., 49; but this Act does not preclude the Civil Courts from taking cognizance of a suit to recover possession, on the averment that the plaintiffs were occupancy ryots, with mesne profits against third persons setting up an adverse title-Mata Pershad vs. Janki, 7 Alla., 226; Raghobar Misser vs. Sital id., 228; nor of a suit to recover possession of sir land on the ground that defendants had taken possession without any right-Mussamut Ghisa vs. Dedari, 7 Alla., 257.