Muhammad Rafiq, J.
1. This is an application in revision from the decree of the Small Cause Court Judge on the ground that the learned Judge had no jurisdiction to entertain the suit. The plaintiffs, the opposite party, sued in the court of the Judge of Small Causes at Kasganj, for the recovery, of half the price of the trees sold by the applicant, on the allegation that under the custom prevailing in the village, the plaintiffs, who were the zamindars, were entitled to half the. sale proceeds. The claim .was resisted on various grounds, but it was decreed. In revision to this Court it is stated that under Article (13), Schedule II, of the Small Cause Courts Act, the present suit is not cognisable by the Small Cause Court. I do not think that the contention for the applicant is well-founded, Mr. Rustomji in his commentary on the small Cause Courts Act says:
If the claim is simply on the basis of a contract or custom, for example, as recorded in the wajib-ul-arz, Article (13) has no application and the suit is prima facie small cause.
2. Under this note he gives rulings of several High Court is, vide, page 63 of this book. The haq that the plaintiffs are claiming was not in respect of any immovable property but in respect of the price of the trees sold, and their claim is based on the terms of the wajib-ul-arz of the village. The objection fails, and I dismiss the application with costs.