ORDER
V.V.S. Rao, J.
1. These civil revision petitions (CRPs) can be disposed of by a common order as the core question that falls for consideration is same. These CRPs are filed under Section 25 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, 1887 (the Provincial Court, for brevity). CRP Nos. 3766 of 2004 and 4572 of 2006 are filed by the plaintiffs and CRP Nos. 4325 and 6065 of 2004 are filed by the defendants, who suffered decrees passed by the Courts concerned exercising small cause jurisdiction. The parties are referred to by their status in the lower Courts.
2. Treating CRP No. 4325 of 2004 as an illustrative one, the brief fact of the matter may be noticed. The plaintiff filed suit, being S.C. No. 91 of 1994, for recovery of a sum of Rs. 5,508/- towards arrears of maktha (rent for agricultural land) for the years 1992-1993 and 1993-1994 and also tax for second crop. He alleged that he let out land admeasuring Ac. 0.96 cents in Survey No. 253/1 situated at Vendra Village of Pedapudi Mandal in East Godavari District to Narla Chandra Rao (the sole defendant) on yearly maktha of 25 bags, that for the year 1992-1993 the tenant paid 19 bags of paddy but failed to pay six bags of paddy for that year and that the tenant paid 11 bags for the year 1993-1994 but failed to pay 14 bags. The defendant filed written statement opposing the suit. He disputed the claim for 25 bags alleging that agreed maktha is 11 bags which was duly paid. After conducting trial, the Court of I Additional Senior Civil Judge, Kakinada, decreed the suit on 20-10-1998. Feeling aggrieved by the same, the sold defendant filed CRP No. 5259 of 1998 before this Court. At that stage the sole defendant died. His wife and children are brought on record as defendant's legal representatives. This Court allowed CRP No. 5259 of 1998 on 20-8-2003 and remitted the matter for determination of correct agreed maktha between the landlord and the tenant. After remand the trial Court by judgment dated 9-8-2004 decreed the suit for a sum of Rs. 5,508/- with interest at 6% per annum recording a finding that the agreed maktha is 25 bags per annum. This is subject-matter of CRP No. 4325 of 2004 filed by LRs of defendant.
3. In CRP No. 6065 of 2004 also suit, being S.C. No. 4 of 2003, was filed for recovery of rent due on agricultural land and after conducting regular trial, by judgment dated 29-9-2004, the Court of the Senior Civil Judge, Pithapuram, exercising small cause jurisdiction decreed suit for a sum of Rs. 5,397.40ps.
4. In CRP No. 3766 of 2004 arising out of small cause suit S.C. No. 26 of 1997 was filed for recovery of a sum of Rs. 5,400/-being arrears of maktha payable by the defendants for the years 1994-1995 to 1996-1997 at Rs. 1,600/- per annum. After conducting trial, by judgment dated 2-12-2003, the Court of the Senior Civil Judge, Addanki, exercising small cause jurisdiction held in favour of the plaintiff that he is entitled for the said amount. But on the question of jurisdiction declined to grant decree on coming to a conclusion that a small cause suit for recovery of rent towards agricultural land does not lie. In CRP No. 4572 of 2006, the plaint submitted by the plaintiff was returned on 3-7-2006 by the Court of the Junior Civil Judge, Ibrahimpatnam, Ranga Reddy District, observing that Law does not recognize oral lease.
5. As noticed in the beginning the core question is whether the Court exercising small cause jurisdiction is entitled to try and decree a suit for recovery of rent on account of agricultural lease. This question has been the subject-matter of three reported decisions of this Court. Therefore, it is better to start from the beginning. The reason for this is that after perusing the judgments of this Court as well as two decisions of the Madras High Court, this Court directed the Registry to get the copies of the notifications, if any, issued by the Madras Government at Fort St. George in Chennai. The Registry has now procured notification published in the Fort St. George Gazette dated 24-1-1888 issued by the Government of Madras to which a reference was made in one of the three decisions of this Court.
6. The Provincial Act by Section 5 empowers the State Government to establish Courts of small causes. Local limits of jurisdiction of such Small Cause Courts, shall be as decided by the State Government. Depending on exigencies of judicial administration, the Courts of Junior Civil Judges and the Courts of Senior Civil Judges have been constituted as Courts empowered to exercise small cause jurisdiction. Section 24 of the Andhra Pradesh Civil Courts Act, 1972 (the Civil Courts Act, for brevity) confers power on the High Court to invest, by notification, any District Judge, Senior Civil Judge and/or Junior Civil Judge with the jurisdiction of a Judge of a Court of small causes for trial of suits cognizable by such Courts up to the amount of Rs. 10,000/- or Rs. 4,000/- in relation to the Senior Civil Judges and the Junior Civil Judges respectively. From time to time this Court has issued notifications increasing pecuniary jurisdiction. The notification vide ROC No. 476/72-Bl dated 24-11-1972 was superseded by another notification vide ROC No. 509/SO/83 dated 6-6-1983. Yet again the same was again superseded by another notification vide ROC No. l765/SO/ 84 dated 5-3-1990. By reason of last of these notifications if the Court of small causes is presided by a Judicial Officer of rank of Senior Civil Judge, the pecuniary jurisdiction is Rs. 10,000/- and in case of Junior Civil Judge, it is Rs. 4,000/-. Though the small cause Courts are established and power is conferred on them in relation to the pecuniary limits, jurisdiction of these Courts of small causes, however, is regulated by Sections 15 and 16 of the Provincial Act. These read as under:
15. Cognizance of suits by Courts of Small Causes:- (1) A Court of Small Causes shall not take cognizance of the suits specified in the Second Schedule as suits expected from the cognizance of a Court of Small Causes.
(2) Subject to the exceptions specified in that Schedule and to the provisions of any enactment for the time being in force, all suits of a civil nature of which the value does not exceed five hundred rupees shall be cognizable by a Court of Small Causes.
(3) Subject as aforesaid, the State Government may, by order in writing, direct that all suits of a civil nature of which the value does not exceed one thousand rupees shall be cognizable by a Court of Small Causes mentioned in the order.
16. Exclusive jurisdiction of Courts of Small Causes:- Save as expressly provided by this Act or by any odier enactment for the time being in force, a suit cognizable by a Court of Small Causes shall not be tried by any other Court having jurisdiction within the local limits of the jurisdiction of the Court of Small Causes by which the suit is triable.
7. Section 16 bars exercise of jurisdiction by any other Court, if a suit is cognizable only by a Court of small causes. Insofar the pecuniary limits and territorial limits of a Court of small causes is concerned, the same is taken care of by the notification issued by the High Court under Section 24 of the Civil Courts Act. Nonetheless as per Section 15(1) of the Provincial Act a Court of Small Causes is divested of the jurisdiction not to take cognizance of suits specified in the second schedule to the Provincial Act. Second Schedule of the Provincial Act contains a list of causes excepted from cognizance by a Court of Small Causes. A suit for possession of immovable property, suit for partition, a suit by a mortgagee for foreclosure, a suit for compensation, a suit against an award, a suit in relation to a foreign judgment etc., cannot be taken cognizance by a Court of Small Causes. Relevant for these cases in Article 8 of the Second Schedule which is to the following effect.
(Articles (1) to (7) are omitted.)
(8) a suit for the recovery of rent, other than house rent, unless the Judge of the Court of Small Causes has been expressly invested by the State Government with authority to exercise jurisdiction with respect thereto;
(Articles (9) to (44) are omitted.)
8. A suit for recovery of rent, other than house rent, cannot be filed nor taken cognizance by a Court of Small Causes. The State Government is competent to confer powers on Court of Small Causes to exercise jurisdiction even with respect to recovery of rents. A suit for recovery of rent is maintainable in a Court of Small Causes but a suit for recovery of rent from agricultural land from a tenant cannot be entertained by the Court of Small Causes unless the State Government specifically confers powers on the Court of Small Causes. The Fort St. George Gazette notification dated 24-1-1888 is the notification which is specifically promulgated in exercise of their powers by the Government under Article 8 of the Second Schedule of the Provincial Act. The notification reads as under:
No. 34:- With reference to Article (8) of the Second Schedule appended to the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, 1887, the Right Honourable the Governor in Council is pleased to invest all Subordinate Judges and District Munsifs within the Presidency of Fort St. George with power to try on the small cause side of their Courts all suits for rent arising within the local limits, and falling within the pecuniary limits, of their special jurisdiction.
This notification will take effect from the first day of February 1888.
9. In Rupulayya v. Annaji Rao 1984 (1) ALT 84, Justice Kodandaramayya considered the question whether the suit for recovery of rent on agricultural land can be taken cognizance of by the Court of Small Causes. Reliance was placed, in support of the ouster of jurisdiction, on Article 8 of the Second Schedule of the Provincial Act. The learned Judge made a reference to the notification dated 24-1-1888 and came to the conclusion that Small Causes Courts so far as the Andhra Area of Andhra Pradesh is concerned had jurisdiction to entertain such suits. Observations made by the learned Judge are as follows:
Though the exact reference to the notification could not be traced, it appears as early as on 24th January, 1888, a Notification was made by the then Madras Government, as contemplated under Article 8 in the Second Schedule mentioned above to the Act empowering all Subordinate Judges and District Munsifs to try on their small causes side all suits for rent falling within the pecuniary limit of their special jurisdiction vide (B.B. Mitra's Provincial Small Causes Courts Act, Eleventh Edition, Page 157). It is held in a reported Judgment in L. Krishnaswami Naidu v. Sri Ramulu AIR 1928 Mad. 21(2), by a Divisional Bench consisting of Madhavan Nair and Curgenven., JJ, that 'under Article 8., Schedule 2 Provincial Small Causes Courts Act a suit for rent is cognizable by a Court of Small Causes which has been expressly invested with the power to try such a suit. All Subordinate Judges and District Munsifs within the Madras presidency have been invested with powers to try rent suits upon the small causes side, provided that they fall within the pecuniary limits of their small causes jurisdiction, so that the effect of this Article, read with the empowering notification, is to exclude all such rent suits from Schedule 2 and to make them cognizable by a Small Causes Court. In other words, effect of the notification is to delete Article 8 from the Schedule'. Thus it is clear that in the Madras Presidency long long ago the notification was made empowering the Small Causes Courts to try the rent suits. This is also noticed by the Civil Justice Committee stating that the fact that in Madras Presidency where the authority to exercise such jurisdiction has been given to all Subordinate Judges and Munsiffs and has been so exercised for many years, no hardship has been felt in practice, must allay any such apprehension. (Vide A. 255, 4th Edn. R.L. Anand, Provincial Small Causes Courts Act).
10. As noticed from the above passage, the learned Judge relied on the Division Bench Judgment of the Madras High Court in L. Krishnaswami Naidu v. Sri Ramulu AIR 1928 Mad. 21(2), wherein it was held as under:
The suit, which was valued at Rs. 354/-, was brought by a shrotriemdar to recover metwaram and swatantarams from his tenant. Melwaram, it is not disputed, is rent, and under Article 8 Schedule 2, Provincial Small Causes Courts Act, a suit for rent is cognizable by a Court of Small Causes which has been expressly invested with the power to try such a suit. All Subordinate Judges and District Munsifs within the Madras Presidency have been invested with powers to try rent suits upon the small cause side, provided that they fall within the pecuniary limits of their small cause jurisdiction, so that the effect of this article, read with the empowering notification, is to exclude all such rent suits from Schedule 2 and to make them cognizable by a Small Cause Court. In other words, the effect of the notification is to delete Article 8 from the schedule, and it only remains to inquire, therefore, whether, by reason of the circumstance that the claim to swatantarams can be brought under any other article of the schedule, the suit for melwaram and swatantarams was of a nature not cognizable by a Small Cause Court.
11. In Pasarlapudi Choultry v. Kadadli Srinivasa Rao : 2002(1)ALT333 , another learned Judge of this Court after referring to Section 15(1) of the Provincial Act and Article 8 of the second schedule thereof, came to the conclusion that a Court of small causes cannot take cognizance of a suit for recovery of arrears of rent relating to agricultural land. This judgment does not make any reference to the decision of the Madras High Court in L. Krishnaswami Naidu's case (supra), or this Court in Rupulayya 's case (supra). It is well settled law that a judgment of record without making reference to the earlier precedents is treated as a decision rendered sub silentio and cannot be treated as binding precedent. See A-one Granites v. State of U.P. : [2001]1SCR1085 .
12. The other judgment to which the attention of this Court is invited is a decision rendered by another learned Judge of this Court in V. Gangaraju v. Eamani Krishna Swamy : 2003(4)ALD571 , wherein the learned Judge took view that the suit for recovery of rent other than the house rent cannot be tried by the Court of small causes unless the State Government invests such jurisdiction on the Court of small causes. While observing thus, this Court did not make any reference to the earlier precedents and therefore, the same cannot be treated as a binding precedent.
13. The decision of Justice Kodandaramayya in Rupulayya's case (supra), not only refers to the Fort St. George Gazette notification but also to two leading textbooks on Provisional Small Causes Courts by Sri B.B. Mitra and Sri R.L. Anand. Rupulayya's case (supra), also follows a binding judgment of the Division Bench of Madras High Court in L. Krishnaswami Naidu 's case (supra). There is no gain saying to mention that all the decisions of the Madras High Court prior to 1-11-1956 (when this High Court was established) are precedents binding on this Court as held by a Division Bench of this Court in Dronavajjula v. Vallabhajosyula AIR 1958 AP 218. Therefore, this Court feels compelled to follow the ratio in Rupulayya's case (supra), especially when this Court has already sent for and got a copy of the original notification issued on 24-1-1888 in the Fort St. George Gazette. It must, therefore, be held that all the Courts of Small Causes in Andhra Pradesh duly constituted and duly invested with the powers by Government notification referred to hereinabove, are competent to entertain suits for recovery of rents in relation to agricultural lands and there cannot be any bar.
14. In CRP No. 4325 of 2004, the learned Counsel for the petitioners placed reliance on the decisions reported in R.K. Shukla v. Thakur Sri Ramjanki AIR 1957 Patna 168, B. Satyanarayana v. M. Sree Ramulu 1961 ALT 404 and C. Hanumaiah v. K. Venkateswarlu 1971 An. WR 65, in support of the contention that the finding of fact which is vitiated for perversity or non-consideration of. relevant evidence can always be interdicted by this Court in exercise of Section 25 of the Provincial Act. There cannot be any clash or quarrel with said principle. In the given case, so as to satisfy itself, this Court can always call for the entire evidence and reconsider the same. After perusing the order passed by the Court of I Additional Junior Civil Judge, Kakinada, in S.C. No. 91 of 1994, out of which CRP No. 4325 of 2004 arises, this Court is not able to countenance the submission of the learned Counsel for the petitioners. On the basis of evidence, the learned Judge has correctly came to the conclusion. No interference is called for merely because other view is also possible.
15. In CRP No. 3766 of 2004 the learned Judge as noticed earlier framed two issues one regarding liability of the defendants to pay the suit amount and the other regarding the jurisdiction. Though the finding on Issue No. 1 was in favour of the plaintiff, the relief was denied as lower Court came to the conclusion that it lacks jurisdiction and the suit was dismissed. In view of the conclusions of this Court on the question of jurisdiction as above and in the absence of challenge to the finding on liability by defendant, the petitioner in CRP No. 3766 of 2004 should succeed. Insofar as CRP No. 4572 of 2006 is concerned, the reason for rejecting the plaint is unsustainable. CRP No. 6065 of 2004 is by the defendants against the judgment of the small cause Court in S.C. No. 4 of 2004 and the same does not warrant any interference.
16. In the result, CRP Nos. 4325 and 6065 of 2004 are dismissed. CRP No. 4572 of 2006 is allowed and the matter is sent back to the Court of the Junior Civil Judge, Ibrahimpatnam, Ranga Reddy District, to number the suit and try in accordance with law. CRP No. 3766 of 2004 is allowed and decree is passed as prayed for in the plaint. There shall be no order as to costs in this Court.