JUDGMENT Sir Francis W. Maclean, K.C.I.E., C.J. - The question we have to decide is whether the Munsiff had jurisdiction to entertain the present suit. A preliminary objection has been taken to the competency of this appeal, but in my opinion an appeal lies : see Goor Bux Sahoo v. Birj Lal Benka ILR (1899) Cal. 275. 2. Upon the question, of jurisdiction, the suit was for rent due on a putni tenure for a sum under Rs. 1,000, but the capital value of the tenure was over that sum-about Rs. 4,500. The sum sued for is within the pecuniary limits of the Munsiff's jurisdiction, but the Subordinate Judge's Court would be the one to entertain a suit for the possession of the tenure. 3. The Court below held that the Munsiff had no jurisdiction and returned the plaint. The Plaintiff appeals. 4. The question appears to me to turn on the true construction 1 of Section 144 of the Bengal Tenancy Act and Sections 15 and 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The Court below has not referred to the latter sections. 5. Section 144 lays down where the cause of action in suits between landlord and tenant shall "for the purposes of the Code of Civil Procedure" be deemed to have arisen: it does not say in which Court the suit is to be instituted. To ascertain this we must go to Section 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Section 16 does not apply. Section 17 says that "all other suits," that is, other than those mentioned in Section 16, " shall be instituted in a Court within the local limits of whose jurisdiction the cause of action arises." This in the case of suits between landlord and tenant is controlled by Section 144 of the Tenancy Act, which tells us where in such suits the cause of action shall be deemed to have arisen, viz., "within the local limits of the jurisdiction of the Civil Court which would have jurisdiction to entertain a suit for the possession of the tenure or holding in connection with which the suit is brought." 6. If the master rested there, the point would be reasonably clear. If the master rested there, the point would be reasonably clear. But the provision in Section 17 is made expressly " subject to the limitations aforesaid," which, looking at Section 16, must include a pecuniary limitation and u/s 15 of the Code, "every suit shall be instituted in the Court of the lowest grade competent to try it." It must mean the particular suit then before the ' Court. 7. u/s 19 of the Civil Courts Act (XII of 1887) the Munsiff has jurisdiction to try oases up to a pecuniary limit of Rs. 1,000. The present suit is for a sum under that amount and consequently the Munsiff would have jurisdiction to deal with the case unless Section 144 of the Tenancy Act be a bar. The cause of action arose in the case within the local limits of the Munsiffs Court. There is no reported case where any contention such as that of the present Defendants has ever been raised and there must have been many cases in which Munsiffs have dealt with cases similar in their circumstances to the present. 8. We cannot deal with the case as one depending upon Section 144 of the Tenancy Act alone : we must read that "section with the sections of the Code to which I have referred, seeing that Section 144 in laying down where the cause of action shall be deemed to have arisen states that it is for the purposes of the Code of Civil Procedure. 9. Looking at all the sections to which I have referred, I think they may fairly bear the construction, that the Munsiff had jurisdiction to try the present case. 10. The appeal therefore must be allowed and the case remanded to be tried on the merits. The costs of this appeal will abide the result. Sale J. 11. I agree. Stevens J. 12. I agree.