Skip to content


Chokey Bharti Vs. Baldeo Gir and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCivil
CourtAllahabad
Decided On
Judge
Reported inAIR1920All123(2); 57Ind.Cas.505
AppellantChokey Bharti
RespondentBaldeo Gir and ors.
Cases ReferredMahadeo v. Budhai Ram
Excerpt:
civil procedure code (act v of 1908), section 102 - small cause suit--suit to recover money forcibly taken by defendant--amount less than rs. 500--second appeal, whether lies. - - 2. on the face of it this is clearly a suit cognizable by a court of small causes. the suit as brought was clearly to recover a sum of money forcibly taken out of the possession of the plaintiff by the defendants......of the money and have found that the defendants have only taken what was due to them. on second appeal a preliminary objection has been taken on the ground that the suit being one cognizable by a court of small causes and the value of the appeal being below rs. 500, no second appeal lies. in our opinion this preliminary objection must succeed. the suit as brought was clearly to recover a sum of money forcibly taken out of the possession of the plaintiff by the defendants. it is argued that article 13 of the 2nd schedule of the small cause courts act removes it from the jurisdiction of a court of small causes and reliance is placed on the case of bhavadason v. narayana somayajipad 28 m. 202, but that ease was of a very different nature. there the plaintiffs claimed to receive from the.....
Judgment:

1. This appeal arises out of a suit brought by one Chokey Bharti on the following allegations:

(1) that he was the manager of a certain temple;

(2) that on the 11th of June 1916, the Dasehra, day a considerable sum of money and offerings had been given to him by worshippers and pilgrims;

(3) that the defendants broke into the temple and forcibly carried away with them money and grain of the total value of Rs. 300, and he prayed to recover this amount.

2. On the face of it this is clearly a suit cognizable by a Court of Small Causes. Both the Courts below have dismissed the plaintiff's suit. They have disbelieved the story of the foraible removal of the money and have found that the defendants have only taken what was due to them. On second appeal a preliminary objection has been taken on the ground that the suit being one cognizable by a Court of Small Causes and the value of the appeal being below Rs. 500, no second appeal lies. In our opinion this preliminary objection must succeed. The suit as brought was clearly to recover a sum of money forcibly taken out of the possession of the plaintiff by the defendants. It is argued that Article 13 of the 2nd Schedule of the Small Cause Courts Act removes it from the jurisdiction of a Court of Small Causes and reliance is placed on the case of Bhavadason v. Narayana Somayajipad 28 M. 202, but that ease was of a very different nature. There the plaintiffs claimed to receive from the defendants a certain proportion of the offerings at a temple. Such a suit no doubt would come within the scope of Article 13, but here no such question arose, and we find that in the case of Mahadeo v. Budhai Ram 26 A. 358 : A.W.N. (1904) 50 the same view was taken.

3. We allow the preliminary objection and dismiss the appeal with costs, including in this Court fees on the higher scale.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //