1. This is an appeal from a decree of the Second Class Subordinate Judge of Poona, directing the payment by the defendants of more than Rs, 5,000. The suit was one for an account, and the plaint was valued at Rs. 200.
2. A preliminary objection has been taken that this Court has no jurisdiction to hear the appeal, it being an appeal from a decision of a Subordinate Judge of the Second Class. Reliance is placed upon Section 8 of the Bombay Civil Courts Act, which appears to conclude the point. There is, however, a decision of this Court, Ibrahimji Issaji v. Bejanji Jamsedji I.L.R. (1895) 20 Bom. 265 in which it was held that in a case where a claim valued at Rs. 600 was tried by a First Class Subordinate Judge who eventually passed a decree exceeding Rs. 5,000, the appeal lay to the High Court under Section 26 of the Bombay Civil Courts Act in view of the fact that the subject-matter of the suit exceeded Rs. 5,000 though the claim was originally valued at Rs. 600 only. The reason for the citation of Ibrahimji Issaji v. Bejanji Jamsetji in this appeal is that the Court then stressed the subject-matter of the suit as finally determined ; and it is argued that by analogy the guiding principle should be the final valuation in this case also. But on no view could Section 8 of the Bombay Civil Courts Act have been applicable to Ibrahimji Issaji v. Bejanji Jamsetji (which was decided on an interpretation of Section 26 of the Act), while here we are concerned only with Section 8. Moreover the principle of this decision (though not the correctness of the decision itself) was doubted in Shet Kavasji v. Dinshaji I.L.R. (1897) 22 Bom. 963. That was a case of a decree exceeding Rs. 5,000 being passed by a Second Class Subordinate Judge in whose Court the original relief claimed had been valued at Rs. 130. It was held that an appeal lay not to the High Court but to the District Court in view only of the fact that the decision was by a Judge of the Second Class.
3. The full bench of the Calcutta High Court in Ijjatulla Bhuyan v. Chandra Mohan Banerjee I.L.R. (1907) Cal. 954. came to a decision similar to that of this Court in Ibrahimji Issaji v. Bejanji Jamsedji I.L.R. (1895) Bom. 265. But the local law governing appeals within the jurisdiction of the Calcutta High Court would not necessarily be of assistance in deciding a case governed by the local law of Bombay. We therefore prefer to accept what appears to be the plain meaning of the Bombay Civil Courts Act and to hold that by Section 8 of that Act the appeal lies not to this Court but to the District Court.
4. The appeal must therefore be returned for presentation to the District Court of Poona. Costs will be costs in the appeal.