Rampratap Vs. Ganesh Rangnath

jurisdiction - subordinate judge invested with small cause judge's powers--civil procedure code (act xiv) of 1882, section iii--set-off exceeding pecuniary jurisdiction of the small cause powers of the subordinate judge--practice. - indian succession act (39 of 1925), section 63: [s.b. sinha & cyriac joseph, jj] will validity - deceased, was a very wealthy person - he floated several companies - he left behind his daughters, s and j - he was suffering from various diseases including some neurological ones - for his treatment, he used to frequently visit united states of america accompanied by his wife and daughter - by reason of a will, he is said to have bequeathed 50% of his property to s and 50% to j in a letter addressed to the 1st respondent, viz., s, he is purported to have recorded that the he had given all his shares to her - will was not only unnatural but was surrounded by a large number of suspicious circumstances held, it is a fit case where the high court should have appointed a receiver and/or an administrator with suitable directions. s alone had been given exclusive powers not only to execute documents but also induct tenants.charles sargent, c.j.1. we think there is no objection to the subordinate judge trying the set-off pleaded by the defendant. he is not the judge of two courts, but has two jurisdiction-malhari v. narso krishna i.l.r., 9 bom., 174and will exercise his small cause court jurisdiction in trying the claim made by the plaint and his ordinary jurisdiction in trying the set-off; and as he is governed by the code of civil procedure in his procedure-bhagvan dayalji v. balu i.l.r., 8 bom., 231 he will set off the one debt against the other as provided by section 111.