Exclusive jurisdiction in licensor-licensee possession suits rests on the real substance of the plaint, not its labels.

Jurisdiction over suits between licensors and licensees in Greater Bombay for recovery of possession of immovable property lies with the Presidency Small Cause Court under the substituted Section 41, and the High Court's Original Side is excluded. The court held that jurisdiction depends on the real substance of the plaint, not its form; a suit framed as one for declaration, injunction or damages will still fall within the statutory forum if its true object is recovery of possession after termination of the licence. Claims for mesne profits or compensation were treated as incidental to that relief. The plaint was therefore directed to be returned to the proper court.

---

---

Issues: Whether the High Court had jurisdiction to entertain and try a suit by a licensor against a licensee for recovery of possession of immovable property in Greater Bombay, where the plaint was framed as one for declaration, injunction and damages.

Analysis: Section 41 of the Presidency Small Cause Courts Act, 1882, as substituted, confers jurisdiction on the Small Cause Court in suits and proceedings between licensors and licensees relating to recovery of possession of immovable property in Greater Bombay and recovery of licence fees or charges. The Court held that the statutory language, read with the amended scheme of local civil jurisdiction, showed that the jurisdiction of the High Court on its Original Side was excluded in such matters. The form of the plaint was held to be irrelevant, because the real substance of the suit was recovery of possession after termination of the licence. The prayer for declaration that the defendant was a trespasser did not convert the suit into one for a declaratory decree, and the prayer for mandatory injunction was only a disguised prayer for possession. The claim for damages, mesne profits or compensation was also held to be incidental to the claim for recovery of possession and therefore within the ambit of the section.

Conclusion: The High Court had no jurisdiction to entertain and try the suit; the issue was answered against the plaintiff.

Final Conclusion: The plaint was directed to be returned for presentation to the Presidency Small Cause Court at Bombay, and the suit costs were to abide the result there.

Ratio Decidendi: For jurisdictional purposes, the court must look to the real substance of the suit, and a plaint that in substance seeks recovery of possession between a licensor and licensee cannot avoid the exclusive forum created by statute merely by couching the reliefs as declaration, injunction or damages.

---