JUDGMENT 1. - A common question has been raised in these two revision petitions for assailing the two orders dated 4/4/84 passed by the learned Judge, Small Causes Court, Jodhpur (learned Civil Judge No. 1. Jodhpur). Both those orders were passed on the application filed by the petitioners on 7/12/82 in the proceedings for recovery of rent by the non-petitioner. As both the orders decide a common question, I propose to dispose them of by a common order. 2. Non-petitioners had brought two suits for recovery of rent against the petitioners in the Court of Small Causes Court, Jodhpur. During those proceedings, the petitioner-defendants filed an application under Section 23 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, 1887 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') with the prayer as that the suit involved a question of title to the property for which rent is sought to be recovered and the question of title was the subject- matter of suits pending in other courts, the plaints may be returned to the non- petitioner-plaintiff. The learned Judge, Small Causes Court, Jodhpur by the impugned order dated 4/4/84 rejected the application on the ground that the suits filed in that Court were simple money suits for recovery of rent and no serious question of title was involved therein. The learned Judge also made a reference to the nature of the other suits pending in other courts and held that pendency of those suits would not in any way affect the decision of the suits under consideration before the learned Judge. 3. Notices were issued to the non-petitioner at the stage of admission and Mr. Gopal Singh appeared on behalf of the non-petitioner. 4. I heard the learned counsel for the parties. 5. It has been strenuously contended by Mr. Jangid, learned counsel for the petitioners, that the object of enactment of Section 23 of the Act was to restrict the jurisdiction of Small Causes Court in matters where complicated question of title arises. It has also been stressed by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the discretion vested in the court should be exercised by the concerned court and the plaints should ordinarily be returned in cases where question of title, of whatever nature it might be, is involved. 6. Mr. It has also been stressed by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the discretion vested in the court should be exercised by the concerned court and the plaints should ordinarily be returned in cases where question of title, of whatever nature it might be, is involved. 6. Mr. Gopal Singh, learned counsel for the non petitioners, controverted the argument on the ground that in the present case what has been denied is the relationship of landlord and tenant and as such, there could not be any difficulty for the learned Judge, Small Causes Court to decide the point. It has also been stressed that the question involved in these cases is about the right to recover rent on a particular date and as such the suit for cancellation of the gift-deed in favour as Phool Singh by Radha Devi will not in any way affect the proceedings in the Small Causes Court. 7. I carefully examined the application under Section 23 of the Act, the plaints and the written statements available with the learned counsel for the petitioners, the impugned orders and the authorities referred to by the learned counsel for the petitioners. Evidently, the suits in question were ordinary money suits for recovery of rent for a few months. The relationship of landlord and tenant has been denied and it has been averred that payment of rent was made to one Smt. Radha Devi. The learned Judge in the impugned orders has referred the argument regarding the pendency of the suit for cancellation of the gift- deed in favour of the non-petitioner by Smt. Radha Devi and has observed that petitioners are not parties therein. The learned Judge has also opined that no complicated question of title of the property is involved in these suits and all that has to be decided is, whether the rent claimed by the plaintiff was due towards the defendants or not. 8. The object of enactment of Section 23 was to relieve the courts of Small causes from the inconvenience of deciding implicated question of title and ownership in summary proceedings. This section does not restrict the jurisdiction of Small Causes Court to decide question of title in matters, which fall under its jurisdiction. 8. The object of enactment of Section 23 was to relieve the courts of Small causes from the inconvenience of deciding implicated question of title and ownership in summary proceedings. This section does not restrict the jurisdiction of Small Causes Court to decide question of title in matters, which fall under its jurisdiction. It rather vests in it the discretionary power to return the plaint for being presented in a court, having jurisdiction to determine the title, if it considers it proper to do so for the reason that a final decision on a question of title, which decision would, if given by an original Court, ordinarily be subject to appeal and even to second appeal and would ordinarily operate as res judicata between the parties. It is pertinent to note that the terms of Section 23 are optional in nature and not directory. To put in other words. a question of title incidentally arising in a matter triable by the Small Causes Court can he decided by that Court unless the court opts to have recourse to Section 23 of the Act. The decision on the question of title incidentally raised in a matter can be decided by the Small Causes Court for the reason that the decision on the question of title by that Court would not be conclusive and would not operate as res judicata in subsequent litigation between the parties for the determination of the same title. 9. In the case on hand, the point to be determined by the court was about the rent being due and the relationship of tenant between the parties. No complicated question of title or ownership of the property in question was, therefore, involved. The three authorities referred to by the learned counsel for the petitioners are of no help to them. 10. In the case of Ram Dayal Sonar v. Sukh Mangal Kalwar, AIR 1937 Allahabad 676 . the revision petition was filed by the plaintiff who had the objection of having his case beard by the ordinary Civil Court in a suit for arrears of rent. One of the issues was whether the plaintiff was the owner of the house in question. His Lordship was pleased to observe that it is most inconvenient for the time of a Small Cause Court to be taken up with a case which involves evidence on a point of title. One of the issues was whether the plaintiff was the owner of the house in question. His Lordship was pleased to observe that it is most inconvenient for the time of a Small Cause Court to be taken up with a case which involves evidence on a point of title. While deciding the application in revision, his Lordship was, however, pleased to enunciate the principle that Section 23 apparently does not lay down that Small Cause Court has got no jurisdiction to determine the question of title to immovable property, but it gives that Court an option to send a case to a Court having jurisdiction to determine the title, probably on the ground of convenience. 11. In the case of Annamalai Chettiar v. Molaiyan, AIR 1970 Madras 396 . following principle was propounded : "A Small Cause Court is evidently competent to decide a question of title if it arises incidentally but its decision on a question of title being a summary one cannot be final. The Small Cause Court, though competent to decide incidentally the question of title in a particular case, must exercise with discretion the power of returning the plaint to be presented to the Original Court which would have jurisdiction to decide on that title finally." The discretion exercised by the learned Judge, Small Causes Court in not proceeding under Section 23 of the Act was disapproved by his Lordship for the reason that complicated questions were to be resolved in disposing of the suits and claims and his Lordship felt satisfied that it could not be done in satisfactory manner if dealt with in a summarification in small cause court side. The question of title being thought to be vital to both the parties it was considered proper that it should be decided on the entire evidence fully recorded and the parties should have the right of a first appeal and if permissible a second appeal also. It was a case where respondents were tenants under the petitioner and were giving melwaram to him at the rate of 40:60 and one bundle of straw out of every five bundles till the year 1966 and they ceased paying the rent on the ground that the village Melur wherein he suit lands were situated and which was a minor 'inam' had been abolished by Madras Act 30 of 1963 and the consequent notification made on 22/1/1966. That thereafter, the rights and obligations of the petitioner-plaintiff as 'inamdar' had been completely extinguished and that he was not therefore, entitled thereafter to the melwram from the respondents. The question of title to the suit proper. ties was complicated and difficult. There was considerable scope for controversy as to whether 22/1/1966 the date of the publication in Exhibit A-1 was the appointed by when the Act 30 of 1963 came into force and that involved the further question whether the Pudukottai (Settlement of Inams) Act (Act 23 of 1955) has no application to minor 'iname'. In that view of the matter, the aforesaid observations were made and the discretion exercised by the court was considered to be improper. 12. The point in the case of Alimuddin v. Mohammad Ishak, 1974 RLW 74 . was about the competency of the Small Cause Court to return plaint where question of title to immovable property was involved. The learned Judge, Small Cause Court, was of the opinion that question of bona fide title to immovable property was involved in the case and the determination of the question as to who was really the landlord in the peculiar circumstances of the case, depended upon the proof or disproof of the title to immovable property. In that view of the matter, the return of plaint for presenting to a court of competent jurisdiction to determine the title was not considered to be illegal or suffering from any material irregularity so as to attract the provisions of Section 115, CPC. 13. A court exercising discretion properly and opting to decide an incidental question of title raised in the matter triable by that Court cannot be said to have exercised jurisdiction not vested in it. In the present case, the learned Judge has given good reasons for his conclusion that no complicated question of title was involved in the matter. 14. In this view of the matter, the impugned orders suffer from no illegality or material irregularity so as to call for any interference by this Court. 15. The revision petitions are dismissed. Costs are made easy.Revision petition dismissed. *******