P. S. NARAYANA, J. ( 1 ) THESE three civil revision petitions arise out of the judgments in Small cause Suit Nos. 28,29 and 30 of 1998 on the file of Senior Civil Judge, Razole. ( 2 ) IN all these civil revision petitions, the unsuccessful plaintiff-Pasarlapudi choultry - represented by its Executive officer is the revision petitioner and different tenants under the Institution figure as respondents in all these civil revision petitions. The suits are filed for recovery of arrears of rent from the respective respondents-defendants in these suits on the ground that they are cultivating tenants and they are liable to pay the rents. The respective defendants had filed the written statements denying the averments in the respective plaints and also denying the title of the plaintiff-choultry and claiming title by adverse possession as well. In ail these matters, on the strength of the respective pleadings of the parties, the following points were framed for consideration:"1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for recovery of rents as claimed? 2. To what relief?" ( 3 ) THE Executive Officer and Junior assistant of the plaintiff-choultry were examined as PWs. 1 and 2 respectively, and the respective tenants were examined as DW1 in all these matters and the documentary evidence of Exs. Al to AS and exs. B1 to B3 was adduced by the respective parties. The Court below after discussing the points for consideration, had ultimately dismissed the suits and the plaintiff- institution aggrieved by the said judgments made in S. C. Nos. 28, 29 and 30 of 1998 had filed these civil revision petitions. ( 4 ) SRI Metta Chandrasekhar Rao, the learned Counsel for the revision petitioner plaintiff, had contended that in the light of the settlement deed-Ex. A5, dated 9-7-1909, the question of title is not a dispute at all. The learned Counsel also had contended that Section 23 of the Provincial Small Cause courts Act, 1887 (for short called as the act hereinafter) has no application to the facts of the case since there is no question of returning the plaints, though, in these suits, the question of title is involved. It was also contended that the mere denial of title in the pleading for denial sake is not sufficient and the defendant denying the title in a small cause suit also should prima facie place some material to substantiate his contention. It was also contended that the mere denial of title in the pleading for denial sake is not sufficient and the defendant denying the title in a small cause suit also should prima facie place some material to substantiate his contention. In all these matters, except the pleas raised by the respective respondents- defendants in all these suits, absolutely there is no material and hence, the Court below had totally erred in placing the reliance on the decisions in Addanki Rupulayya v. Imella Annaji Rao, 1984 (1) An. WR 226, jagannath Prasad v. District Judge, allahabad, AIR 1987 All. 317 and Braham singh v, IV Additional District Judge, meerut, AIR 1988 All. 301 , in this regard. Learned Counsel also had contended that the evidence of PWs. 1 and 2 is clear and categorical relating to the relationship of landlord and cultivating tenants and hence, the Court below had totally erred in dismissing the suits. ( 5 ) HEARD the learned Counsel for the petitioner in these matters at length and perused the material available on record in all the civil revision petitions. ( 6 ) THE suits are filed by the revision petitioner-plaintiff institution for recovery of arrears of rent from the cultivating tenants relating to the agricultural lands. Section 23 of the Act dealing with return of plaints in suits involving questions of title reads as follows:"23. Return of plaints in suits involving questions of title :- (1) Notwithstanding anything in the foregoing portion of this act, when the right of a plaintiff and the relief claimed by him in a Court of Small causes depend upon the proof or disproof of a title to immovable property or other title which such a Court cannot finally determine, the Court may at any stage of the proceeding return the plaint to be presented to a Court having jurisdiction to determine the title. (2) When a Court returns a plaint under subsection (1), it shall comply with the provisions of the second paragraph of Section 57 of the code of Civil Procedure and make such order with respect to costs as it deems just, and the Court shall, for the purposes of the indian Limitation Act, 1877, be deemed to have been unable to entertain the suit by reason of a cause of a nature like to that of defect of jurisdiction. " ( 7 ) ON perusal of the evidence available on record, except just denying the title, the alleged tenants, i. e. , respondents-defendants in these civil revision petitions had not produced any independent material. Be that as it may, now the question is whether the suits of this nature are cognizable by the principal Junior Civil Judge on small cause side or these suits should have been filed for recovery of arrears of rent relating to agricultural lands on original side. The second Schedule of the Act deals with suits excepted from the cognizance of a Court of small Causes. The Second Schedule of the act should be read along with Section 15 of the Act, which deals with cognizance of suits by Court of Small Causes. Section 15 of the Act reads:"15. Cognizance of suits by Court s of small Causes :- (1) A Court of Small Causes shall not take cognizance of the suits specified in the Second Schedule as suits excepted 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. " ( 8 ) SECTION 16 of the Act, which deals with exclusive jurisdiction of Court of Small causes, reads:"16. Exclusive jurisdiction of Courts of Small causes :-Save as expressly provided by this Act or by any other 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. " ( 9 ) NOW coming to Clause (8) of the second Schedule of the Act, the provision specifies as follows:" (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. " ( 10 ) IN M. Suryanarayanaraju v. K apparao, 1999 (3) ALT 337 , while dealing with the return of the plaint involving questions of title under Section 23 of the Act, it was held that it was not mandatory to return the plaints unless dispute as to title to property is of a complicated nature and the Court has a discretion to try the suit in which the question of title is involved and question of title involved in a case, which is a suit for recovery of rents only, is not a complicated one depriving the small Causes Court of its jurisdiction to try the suit. ( 11 ) IT is pertinent to note that if the pecuniary jurisdiction is taken into consideration on original side, these suits ought to be tried only by the Junior Civil judge and not by a Senior Civil Judge. Evidently, these plaints were entertained and numbered by the Senior Civil Judge, razole on the small cause side. In view of the observations made above and in view of the pecuniary jurisdiction involved, these plaints are to be returned to be presented to the proper Court i. e. , Principal junior Civil Judge, Razole. Hence, it is hereby directed that the plaints in all these suits be returned to be represented before the Principal Junior Civil Judge, razole, and after such representation, the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Razole, shall number the suits and then proceed with the same in accordance with law. Accordingly, the impugned judgments are set aside. ( 12 ) THE civil revision petitions are allowed to the extent indicated above and the matters are remanded to the Principal junior Civil Judge, Razole. However, in the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs.