Suit for possession of immovable property is not cognizable by Small Causes Court regardless of valuation.

The respondents (plaintiffs) filed Title Suit No. 276/2012 seeking a declaration of right, title, interest, and recovery of possession of immovable property

The suit was valued at Rs. 500/- for jurisdiction.

The trial court decreed the suit in favor of the respondents

On appeal (Title Appeal No. 51/2017), the First Appellate Court dismissed the appeal as not maintainable under Section 96(4) of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), on the grounds that the suit was of a nature cognizable by a Court of Small Causes and the valuation did not exceed Rs. 10,000/-

The appellants then moved the Gauhati High Court in a second appeal.

1. Whether the First Appellate Court was justified in dismissing the appeal as not maintainable under Section 96(4) of the CPC on the basis that the valuation of the suit was Rs. 500/- without taking into consideration the Second Schedule of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, 1887?

Section 96(4) of the CPC, which bars appeals (except on questions of law) for suits cognizable by Courts of Small Causes where the value is under Rs. 10,000/-

Section 15 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, 1887, which defines the cognizance of such courts subject to exceptions in the Second Schedule

Clause (4) of the Second Schedule of the 1887 Act excludes suits for "possession of immovable property or for the recovery of an interest in such property" from the jurisdiction of Small Cause Courts

The High Court observed that for the bar under Section 96(4) of the CPC to apply, the suit must be "of the nature cognizable by Courts of Small Causes"

Upon examining the Second Schedule of the Act of 1887, the Court found that suits regarding the possession of immovable property are expressly excluded from the jurisdiction of Small Cause Courts

Because the underlying suit sought a declaration of title and recovery of possession, it was never a "Small Cause" nature suit, regardless of its low valuation

Consequently, the First Appellate Court committed a manifest error by mechanically applying the valuation threshold without verifying the nature of the suit under the 1887 Act's schedule

The judgment of the First Appellate Court dated 11.12.2020 was set aside, and the matter was remanded to the First Appellate Court for a fresh consideration of the appeal on its merits