Judgment.-The respondent is not represented. The unsuccessful plaintiff before the District Munsif, Kumbakonam, has filed this civil revision petition challenging the regularity and the propriety of the judgment and decree of the Court below rendered in exercise of its small causes jurisdiction. The peti-tioner-panchayat sold in public auction the right to catch fish in Ponniamman tank in Darasuram which admittedly vested in the panchayat. The defendant was declared to be the highest bidder. He worked upon the right so purchased by him in public auction, but failed to pay the auction amount in spite of demands. The panchayat therefore had to file the present action. The defendant in his written statement prayed for the dismissal of the suit on the ground that the tank was not delivered to him and that therefore he could not work his right at all. On the question of fact, the lower Court came to the conclusion that the defendant did work out such rights. On the other question whether the suit was cognisable by a Small Causes Court, the Court below was of the view that the amount claimed by the petitioner was in relation to a right in immovable property, as it was for the privilege of fishing in a pond within the jurisdiction of the panchayat and in that view it held that under the provisions of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, it had no jurisdiction to hear the suit. It, therefore, dismissed the suit, though it was of the view that the plaintiff-panchayat would certainly be entitled to the amount on facts. It is as against this judgment the present civil revision petition has been filed. 2. Mr. Subramaniam, learned Counsel for the petitioner, hesitantly says that the right of fishing would not amount to a right in relation to any interest in immovable property or one intrinsically connected with any right in it. But the matter is settled by a decision of the Supreme Court in Ananda Behru v. State of Orissa1 , where the Supreme Court has said that the sale of a right to catch and carry away fish in specific portions of a lake over a specified time amounts to a licence to enter into the land coupled with the privilege to catch and carry away fish. They would characterise that right as a profit a prendre, which is legalistically known as a right in relation to immovable property. They would also distinguish an earlier decision of the Supreme Court in Firm Chhotabhai Jethabai Patel and Company v. State of Madhya Pradesh2, and would say that in India such a benefit has been held as one arising out of the land and as such it is immovable property. The lower Court was therefore right in having held that the plaintiff’s cause of action arose out of a right or interest in immovable property. 3. The only other question which survives in this revision petition is, whether a Court which finds that it has no jurisdiction to entertain a particular action, though, on merits, it finds in favour of the plaintiff, should at all times dismiss the action and has it no other right or duty to perform in such circumstances. 4. Section 15 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act deals with cognisance of suits by Courts of Small Causes in the mofussil. Under sub-section (1) of section 15, a Court of Small Causes in the mofussil shall not take cognisance of the suits specified in the second schedule. Sub-section (2) of section 15 refers to certain exceptions made in the second schedule to the very Act and says that 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 cognisable by a Court of Small Causes. Sub-section (3) of section 15 vests with the State Government the residuary power to make an order in writing directing that all suits of a civil nature of which the value does not exceed one thousand rupees shall be cognisable by a Court of Small Causes mentioned in that order made by them.It is therefore necessary for us to see in the instant case, whether the Court of Small Causes could entertain a suit in relation to the right of fishing in a tank which was sold in public auction and towards which there was default by the person in whose favour the auction was knocked down. We have already seen that the right to fish in tanks within the jurisdiction of public bodies has been characterised as interest in immovable property. Under item 11 of the second schedule to the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, a suit for the determination or enforcement of any other right to or interest in immovable property is kept beyond the jurisdiction of the Court of Small Causes under section 15 (1) of the Act. 5. Thus, if such a suit is beyond its cognisance, the next question is, what is the procedure to be adopted by that Court in the matter of further processing of such a lis before it. It would be highly inequitable to dismiss such a suit. On the other hand, it will be furthering justice, if the plaints in such suits, which the Courts of Small Causes in the mofussil could not take cognisance of due to inhibitions and prohibitions made under the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, are returned to the litigants concerned for presentation to the proper Court. This process, which ought to be followed, would not only further justice but would also avoid miscarriage of justice. That this is the proper course has also been spoken to by our Court in Sattemma v. Ramayya1 . There, Gentle, C. J., said in similar circumstances that in any event the dismissal of the suit was not the proper course to have been followed and that the learned District Munsif should have directed the return of the plaint to the plaintiff for presentation to the proper Court. 6. In these circumstances, I accept the contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner and set aside the order of the Court below and direct the learned District Munsif to restore the suit on file and pass orders on it in accordance with the observations made above for returning the plaint to the plaintiff for presentation to the proper Court. The civil revision petition is allowed. There will be no order as to costs.